Co-op Bank Now Demutualised but Name Debate Continues

On Friday, phase 1 of the deal to rescue and demutualise the Co-op Bank was finalised. It was supported at all necessary meetings of classes of creditor and shareholder and approved by the Court. Effective majority control of the Bank has now passed to investors with the issue of new ordinary shares and the cancellation of the Group's existing shares.

However, the question of the Bank's continued use of the word "Co-operative" in its name remains open. Back in early November when the basic effects of the deal were announced, I expressed my views and outlined the relevant legal provisions about its continued use of the word "Co-operative" in its name.

That led to Letters in the print edition of the Co-op News of 19.11.13 to 03.12.13 from my old mate, Iain Williamson, fellow Co-op news scribbler and secretary of the Co-operative Press, and Brian Taylor, long time co-op activist and employee, arguing that it's OK for the name to be used by a PLC 70% owned by investors.

Some readers of this blog may not subscribe to the paper edition of the Co-op News. So here's my reply to Iain and Brian, published in the print edition of 03.12.13 to 17.12.13:

"23rd November 2013

Dear Sir,

Co-op Bank, Co-op Group, The Name and the Brand

Please allow me to respond to the letters that appeared in the print version of the Co-op News of 19th November to 3rd December from Iain Williamson and Brian Taylor.

First, I heartily agree with Iain Williamson's comments on the Bank rescue and the current Group CEO. The leadership  shown by Mr Sutherland and the job that he and his colleagues have done in seeking to rescue what they can from the Bank disaster is excellent. They had a very poor hand in the negotiations and played it very well. We must all hope and pray that the recapitalisation plan is supported by the necessary majorities of each class of creditor and by the preference shareholders on 11th December when they meet.

I also agree with Brian Taylor's comments on the importance of the “Co-operative” brand and its value as an intangible asset, although I think he may have overstated the effect on the share price of a suitable name change for the Bank within a year or two of the recapitalisation.

However, the argument of Messrs Williamson and Jones that the Bank never was a co-operative is disingenuous. While the legal entity of the Bank has long been a PLC, the Co-op Group has always argued that the whole “family of businesses” is one Co-operative family. That was based on the Group’s status as a bona fide co-operative owned and controlled by its corporate and individual co-operative members and, crucially, its 100% ownership of the Bank PLC and the Co-operative Insurance Society.

That is a wholly different situation from  the retention of the name “Co-operative” by a Bank 70% owned by stock market investors. This new situation is a long way down a slippery slope. The recapitalisation deal actually permits the continued use of the name if the Group's stake reduces to 20% and the stake of the investors rises to 80%. The Group is already legally committed not to use the word “co-operative” or any similar word in conjunction with the word “bank” for many years.  That disposal of an aspect of the brand was presumably a necessary price for retaining a 30% stake in the Bank and getting the constitutional entrenchment of ethical values. That is certainly in the interests of all the stakeholders in both the Bank and the Group.

However, the Group is neither the whole UK Co-operative Movement nor the whole global Co-operative Movement. That wider interest requires that only organisations which conform with the ICA definition should be regarded as co-operatives. In many countries that is legally achieved by preventing the use of the name by any entity not registered under a specific Co-operative Law. In the UK we have the flexible and liberal approach of allowing co-operatives to use any business structure that they wish. However, the restriction on the use of the name “co-operative” by business structures other than I & P societies is the legal price paid for that. As I have noted elsewhere, the restriction only applies to new company registrations but there is power to prohibit the use of a misleading name at any time in a company’s life. That explains Paul Gosling’s observation on page 4 of the same issue of the News that a change of name ordered under those provisions is listed in the Prospectus as a risk factor for investors. That shows that the point is not merely “academic”. It is with a heavy heart that I re-emphasise this issue because it is obviously one that is irritating and worrying for the Bank and Group Executives and Boards.

However, the wider interests of cooperatives cannot be ignored and BIS is the ultimate guardian of those interests in this situation as it is the only agency that can force a change. Surely consideration of a transition to another “ethical” name for the Bank within the next couple of years would be helpful to all the bank’s stakeholders - especially the investors who may well have rescued it from oblivion. Such an approach might also help to deal with any process by BIS that results from complaints about the use of the name and could help to  avoid an abrupt forced name change. I appreciate that any change will have be made some time after the recapitalisation plan has been carried out, as the unfettered use of the name by the Bank is the basis on which next month’s votes take place.

I hope that I am acting as a critical friend on this. As Daren Hale implies in his letter on the same page of the News as Brian Taylor’s, an absence of critical debate may have contributed to the development of these problems. We should all try to prevent any repetition of that by encouraging more robust, better informed and sympathetic debate as well as more thorough scrutiny by members and the press of management and boards.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Snaith"

Vince Cable has indicated that, if complaints are received, he will consider requiring that the name no longer be used. That possibility was highlighted in the Bank prospectus as a risk for investors. Surely it is time for the Bank to look at phasing out the use of the word "Co-operative" in the name to deal with that risk?

© Ian Snaith 2013 This work is licensed under the 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Last Minute Change to Co-op Bank Plan? Aurelius sell Stake to Perry Capital?

Hedge Fund Cock Up?

More news on the Co-op bank Recapitalisation Scheme today.

This morning's Times carried this enigmatic piece on page 56:

"Co-operative Bank: Hedge funds planning to take control of the lender have been left with a potentially expensive loophole. At issue is £125 million of new capital that lower tier bondholders, led by the funds Aurelius Capital and Silver Point plan to inject."

This afternoon the FT explains what has happened thus:

"A group representing the hedge funds and other lower tier two investors on Thursday pledged its support for the restructuring, after asking the Co-op to make a last-minute amendment to the terms.

The change is intended to close a loophole that was providing an opportunity for brokers and traders to undermine the new equity issuance by submitting claims for larger numbers of shares than they were entitled to. This could have meant that the LT2 group ended up with a smaller equity stake than they expected.

“The LT2 Group confirms its support for the recapitalisation of the Co-op Bank and . . . is fully supportive of the new management team for the bank,” it said"

The detail of the new announcement on the Co-op Group website reveals that the Bank may apply to court to modify the Scheme of Arrangement. Some of the holders of LT2 bonds have requested that and the Bank is considering whether or not to make the application. The statement says that  no slippage in the timing of the deal beyond 31.12.13. would be permitted. That is a PRA deadline on the capital. The legal obligation of some of the holders of these securities to support the Scheme (the "lock in agreement") would stay in place whether the Scheme is modified or not.

Here's the change the announcement outlines. Under the existing Scheme as proposed these holders get:

"a combination of:

• £100 million of 11 per cent. Subordinated Notes due 2023 to be issued by the Bank (“Bank T2 Notes”); and

• 112,500,000 new ordinary shares in the Bank (“New Ordinary Shares”) representing 45 per cent. of the total issued share capital of the Bank following completion of the LME.

The holders of the Dated Notes will also be entitled to subscribe for 62,500,000 additional new ordinary shares in the Bank (the “Additional New Ordinary Shares”) at a price of £2.00 per new ordinary share representing 25 per cent. of the total issued share capital of the Bank following completion of the LME, for an aggregate consideration equal to £125 million, pursuant to, and on the terms of, the Scheme with such subscription being underwritten by certain persons who were holders of Dated Notes as at 4 November 2013. The Scheme provides that any holder of Dated Notes is entitled to elect to subscribe for between a minimum election of 50,000 (for an aggregate subscription price of £100,000) and a maximum election of 62,500,000 Additional New Ordinary Shares."

If the Co-op Bank made an application to court and the court agreed the modification they would get:

"a combination of:

• £100 million of Bank T2 Notes; and

• 141,666,666 new ordinary shares in the Bank representing 56.67 per cent. of the total issued share capital of the Bank following completion of the LME.

The holders of the Dated Notes would also be entitled to subscribe for 33,333,334 additional new ordinary shares in the Bank at a price of £3.75 per new ordinary share representing 13.33 per cent. of the total issued share capital of the Bank following completion of the LME, for an aggregate consideration of £125 million3(iii), pursuant to, and on the terms of, the Modified Scheme. This subscription would be fully underwritten by, amongst others, the Ad Hoc Group.  The Modified Scheme would provide that any holder of Dated Notes would be entitled to elect to subscribe for between a minimum election of 26,667 (for an aggregate subscription price of £100,001.25) and a maximum election of 33,333,334 additional new ordinary shares. The allocation mechanism for the allocation of additional new ordinary shares described in the explanatory statement dated 18 November 2013 relating to the Scheme would otherwise remain unchanged."Note 3(iii) reads: '33,333,334 (representing the balance of 13.33 per cent. of the total) will be available for subscription by holders of Dated Notes pursuant to, and on the terms of, the Modified Scheme for an aggregate consideration equal to £125,000,002.50 (representing an effective subscription price of £3.75 per share)'."

This appears to mean that they would get more shares up front and subscribe for fewer further down the line. However,:

"The total number of new ordinary shares in the Bank issued to holders of Dated Notes as a class under the Modified Scheme would be the same as the number to be issued under the Scheme."

I fear I am at the limits of my ability to interpret this information here but maybe a failure to get the Scheme modified could cost them £125m without changing the overall percentage holding they would have?

Maybe this was an error in transcribing what was agreed to the detail of the official Scheme documents or maybe it was only realised later that there was an issue about the timing and minimum and maximum permitted subscriptions by this Group and its effect on their stake?

The position of the classes of creditors and preference shareholders deciding by tomorrow whether to take extra money for early agreement will be unaffected by the proposed change so maybe a court would grant a modification if it was asked to?

 Aurelius Sale?

The FT reported at 4.47pm today that Aurelius has "walked away" by selling most of its stake to another Hedge Fund.

"Aurelius piled into Co-op Bank’s lower tier two bonds as a severe capital shortage emerged at the lender in the summer. Along with several other hedge funds, including Silverpoint Capital and Beach Point Capital, it built up a blocking stake in the bonds, which it used to secure a far better deal for creditors than had originally been offered by the bank.People familiar with Aurelius’s decision to sell said it was based purely on economic value, as its bonds performed strongly after the restructuring deal was announced."

However, because key parts of the deal have already been contractually agreed, the obligation to vote for the Scheme and the commitment to the ethical aspects of the Bank's constitution will still bind the new owner of the Aurelius stake.

Flowers and the Chancellor

The announcement on the Co-op Group website also warns investors:

"On 22 November 2013 the Chancellor of the Exchequer ordered an independent investigation into events at the Bank and the circumstances surrounding them to take place under section 77 of the Financial Services Act 2012. Separately, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority each announced on 22 November 2013 that they are considering whether they should also launch their own formal enforcement investigations. The precise scope and timing of these investigations is yet to be determined.

The regulatory and other investigations that have been recently announced are likely to subject the Bank to greater scrutiny from regulators, will take management time and result in the Bank incurring costs not currently included in its business plan which cannot be quantified at this time. Recent events may have caused some brand and reputational damage, but it is too early to form a definitive view as to the extent of such damage.  These recent events, together with the competitive landscape in which the Bank operates, the introduction of seven day account switching and the associated increased competitor marketing activity at a time when the Bank has been constrained in its ability to undertake its own marketing activity, may be a contributing factor to an increase the Bank has seen in the switching out of current accounts.  However, the Bank's retail deposit base remains broadly stable and it is too early to identify any significant trends at this point.  Further, the Bank's liquidity position remains stable.  Overall, the Bank's performance has been consistent with or, in the case of costs, slightly better than, management’s expectations."

Interesting times indeed..........but lets hope the Scheme gets approval.

© Ian Snaith 2013 This work is licensed under the 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Co-op Bank Capital: The Plan to List the Bank

This morning, the Co-op Bank announced its plan to deal with the problems acquired with the Britannia Building Society and how it intends to meet the Basel III requirements for increased capital for banks. The plan has been agreed by the Banking regulator. The PRA has agreed that the bank needs £1.5billion in capital and has approved the current plan by the bank and the Co-op Group to achieve this.

Once the plan is carried out, the Bank will no longer be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Co-op Group but will be a Stock Exchange Listed Company with ordinary shareholders. The plan is that the majority of ordinary shares will still be held by the Co-operative Group.

Lets look at the detail of the plan and think about its implications. The full text of the plan is available on the Co-op Group's website. An interview with Euan Sutherland is available on Youtube as well. The main features of the plan seem to be as follows.

The Plan

It has been agreed that the Bank needs £1.5 billion in Common Equity Tier 1 capital. For the meaning of "Common Equity Tier 1 Capital", see Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, "Basel III: A global regulatory framework for more resilient banks and banking systems", December 2010, revised June 2011 at pp 13-17.

£1 billion is to be contributed in 2013 and a further £0.5 billion in 2014. The first £1 billion will come from an "Exchange Offer" to be launched in October 2013. The holders of "target securities" i.e. preference shares, subordinated bonds and subordinated notes in the Bank will be offered the chance to swap those securities for a mixture of senior but unsecured debt securities in the Group, plus possibly similar securities in the bank, AND ordinary shares in the bank. See pp 6-7 of Co-op Bank Plan Full Statement 17.06.13 for a list of the securities involved and their ranking.

The exact mixture offered to those security holders will vary according to the ranking of the securities that they hold

"more junior ranking Target Securityholders are likely to be offered a substantially greater proportion of Bank Shares relative to the Group Instrument. The most senior ranking Target Securityholders are expected to be offered the substantial proportion of the Group Instrument."

Preference shareholders will get the highest proportion of shares and holders of Notes the highest proportion of debt securities (pp 6-7).

The target securities in the Exchange Offer will be redeemed below the bank's book value (p3 of the Co-op Bank Plan Full Statement 17.06.13). That is the contribution of those security holders to solving the bank's capital shortfall. For "small retail investors", the Bank is considering both "alternative options" and "the provision of independent financial advice" (p4 Co-op Bank Plan Full Statement 17.06.13).

The Co-op Group's contribution as part of the Exchange Offer is that the proceeds from issuing its senior but unsecured debt securities will be used indirectly to finance its own subscription to additional ordinary shares in the bank while Co-op Group will meet the interest and principal payments on that debt from its own resources.

Part of the £0.5 billion to be raised for the Bank in 2014 will be found by the Co-op Group. It will be made up of  the proceeds from the sale of  Co-operative Life Assurance and Asset Management - agreed but subject to regulatory approval - and  from the sale of Co-operative General Insurance by the Group. In addition, the Bank will embark on a cost saving programme and the sale of non-core Bank assets.

The bank will focus in future on serving retail customers and small businesses rather than larger corporate and commercial customers with complex requirements.

The Effects?

So, what does this mean?

• The detailed proportion of the bank's ordinary shares that will be held by minority shareholders rather than the Group will not be known until the detailed Exchange Offer ("Equity Swap") is made in October and the response of Target Security holders is known.
• There has been a genuine effort to develop an "equitable" solution to the problem.
• The existing outside investors in the Bank make a contribution by getting a new bundle of ordinary shares and debt securities which do not reflect the book value of the bank.
• So, watch out for a short term reduction in the credit rating of the "target securities" subject to the Equity Swap and of the bank's senior issuer credit rating - p5 Co-op Bank Plan Full Statement 17.06.13.
• The Co-op Group raises funds based on its own credit worthiness and invests in ordinary shares in the bank as well as investing the proceeds of the sale of the insurance businesses.
• The bank employees and management participate in cost cutting and a refocus of the business.
• The Co-op group avoids selling other profitable businesses to bail out the Bank
• The requirements of UKLA and the Disclosure and Transparency, Prospectus and Listing Rules as they apply to Ordinary Shares will impose a level of transparency and accountability on the management of the Bank and, indirectly, of the Group that will be healthy and useful to Co-op Directors and members.

All in all, this looks like a reasonable and proportionate plan to deal with the serious problems that emerged earlier this year and to clean up the mess.

Using the bank's PLC status to come up with a solution looks like the least of the evils. However, we must hope that any slippery slope towards reduced Co-op Group control of the Bank is avoided.