Tuesday, December 29, 2009
It appears that even after thoroughly dominating the US legislative, judicial and executive branches, the long tentacles of the squid have been no better than the Mongolian hordes at overcoming the Chinese Wall (which is ironic seeking how easy it is to ignore the same construct internally between the firm’s prop and flow traders…and yes, we will be posting our response to Goldman shortly, we have not forgotten). In the meantime, half a world away, a small Chinese power generator, Shenzhen Nanshan Power, is blatantly refusing to honor contracts with Goldman Subsidiary J. Aron for $80 million in derivative losses, and it appears that China itself has decided to stand behind the small company.
Shenzhen Nanshan Power (000037.SZ) (200037.SZ) said in a statement that it received several notices from J. Aron & Company, a trading subsidiary of Goldman Sachs (GS.N), for at least $79.96 million as compensation for terminating oil option contracts.
“We will not accept the demand by J. Aron for all the losses and related interests,” said Nanshan, in line with the stance it took last December.
“We will try our best to negotiate with J. Aron and resolve the dispute peacefully…but the possibility of using a lawsuit can not be ruled out when talks fail,” it added.
“J. Aron told us in one notice that if we do not pay the money, they will reserve the right to launch a lawsuit and will not send us any further notice.”
The State Assets Supervision and Administration Commission said in September that it would back state-owned companies in any legal action against the foreign banks that sold them oil derivatives, which resulted in losses when oil prices dived late last year. [ID:nPEK14474]
A Beijing-based Goldman Sachs corporate communication official declined to comment.
Not sure what Hank Paulson’s former firm would comment: alas the Chinese communist party still has to be filled with Goldman alumni. That being said, this is precisely the track that Goldman has been focusing on for the past few years. At this point, the firm realizes all too well that dominating power politics in China in the near futures is far more critical than complete control over D.C., as there is little the world’s most important company can do domestically in the context of taxpayer capital transfer without a full fledged revolution.
This article was posted: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 at 11:11 am