Posts
I was just reading an article in The EDGE and wonder what this would mean for GLP and its shareholders:
"Last December, GLP had to clarify that it did not disclose during IPO that a non-compete agreement with ProLogis was due to expire this February as the deal requires GLP not compete with ProLogis in Japan while ProLogis reciprocally does not compete in GLP’s core market of China.
"The clarification was made in response to a report in The Business Times that the prospectus for GLP’s initial public offer last October did not specifically disclose that the non-compete agreement was expiring in a couple of months."
Question. Was the non-disclosure misrepresentation on the part of GLP during its IPO? This is especially grave if the information omitted could have serious consequences for GLP's shareholders. I learned in business law many years ago that misrepresentation by omission is just as grave as misrepresentation through the giving of false information.
From a purely business perspective, I wonder how things would pan out in the next few years as ProLogis becomes more aggressive in its pursuit of growth in Asia. Is GLP up to the challenge? It did buy ProLogis' assets. I liken this to Akira asking an OEM to produce its products. Obviously, the OEM is the party with the knowledge and the production capabilities. If the OEM were to offer its products directly to the market, it could do so with an in-house brand and at a more competitive price. Consolation? Akira has a more established brand name but see what good it did for Akira? Did GLP have enough time to establish a strong brand name?
Of course, I am just thinking aloud here and playing the Devil's advocate. I am throwing the floor open to anyone, vested or not vested in GLP, to share any pertinent thoughts on the matter.
Prologis to double Asian holdings after biggest REIT deal
Saturday, 04 June 2011
Saturday, 04 June 2011
© 2011 - The Edge Singapore
Related post:
GLP: A falling dagger?
Bloggy Award