Possible Fraudulent "Clean" Audit of Hicks Sports in 2008 May Have Delayed Sale of Dallas Stars 2 Years
Were Tom Hicks and Hicks Sports Group in serious trouble much, much sooner than anyone knew?
That's what Galatioto Sports Partners LLC is alleging in a law suit against KPMG LLC, says a really excellent report from Robert Wilonsky of The Dallas Observer. Give him your clicks for this excellent find.
You might be familiar with the KPMG tower in Dallas but never thought about what they do. From their own web site: "KPMG is a global network of professional firms providing Audit, Advisory and Tax service." KPMG was hired to perform one of said audits of Hicks Sports Group in 2008 and issued an opinion of "clean". Based on that recommendation, GSP loaned Hicks $67 million dollars, part of a larger $540 million line of credit extended based on the audit.
What's happening is this: GSP (nowadays a part of the ambiguous group we call "the lenders" when we talk about the sale of the Dallas Stars) has potentially found another way to recoup some of that money, and it sounds like they have a pretty good argument.
From the lawsuit, via The Observer:
KPMG's fraud inflicted significant losses on GPS and the lenders. Had KPMG exercised professional due care, its March 31, 2008 independent auditor's report would have disclosed both Hicks Sports' inability to continue as a going concern and its breach of the Debt Covenant. Hicks Sports' failure to obtain a clean audit opinion and certification of its compliance with the Debt Covenant would have resulted in a default of the credit agreement. This would have permitted the lenders to exercise several rights to ensure full repayment of the loans, including terminating the credit agreements and asserting control over the equity interested Hicks Sports held in the Stars and Rangers.
Which is to say that all of this mess likely would have happened anyway, but it might have started in 2008, not in February of 2010, changing the course of history for both the Texas Rangers and the Dallas Stars.
The lawsuit, filed at the New York State Supreme Court can be found here, or by searching their online system here, if that doesn't work.
This lawsuit might make KPMG seem like one of the villains of this story we never even knew existed all this time. Digging into the suit, it's clear that Galatioto has enough disdain to go around for both Hicks and KPMG.
Follow me after the jump because you're going to want to see this...
More from the lawsuit...
Hicks used the proceeds of the credit agreements to restructure debt and increase working capital available to it's financially troubled subsidiaries - the National Hockey League's Dallas Stars and Major League Baseball's Texas Rangers. Even with the benefit of the credit facilities, Hicks sports failed to to effect a turnaround and continued to suffer tens of millions in losses annually.
Which is to say, they were giving him money he clearly wasn't good for (in hindsight) and he still couldn't turn the thing around, which we already knew. There is no indication in these documents about how much of the losses back then were attributed to which team, and that's something we'll probably never really know.
Here are the real stomach turners, though keep in mind that this is GSP's opinion and it is a biased one with strong language throughout...
KPMG's fraudulent misrepresentations denied the lenders the ability to enforce their rights, and allowed Hicks Sports to continue drawing funds from the credit facility and to remain in control of it's sports franchises. In the interim, Hicks Sports took several actions adverse to the interests of GSP and the lenders.
Hicks Sports added more than $100 million in liabilities to its balance sheet, attempted to affect a sale of the Texas Rangers that would have diverted millions away from the lenders, and strategically timed its eventual default on March 31st, 2009 to remain in control of its assets until after the conclusion of the 2010 Stanley Cup Finals.
It's jarring to hear to see the Stanley Cup Finals in these legal documents, and to think that even when the Red Wings and Stars played in the Western Conference Finals in 2008, back when we were innocent, this was all in motion and had been for quite some time.
As a result, of Hicks' Sports strategic timing, the lenders were powerless to accelerate and foreclose on the amounts owed at a time when the capital markets were deteriorating.
The result was the sale of the Texas Rangers at a price that left the lenders severely under compensated and a pending sale of the Dallas Stars that is likely to be at a significantly reduced valuation when compared to what would have achieved in 2008.
The first part of that last sentence is interesting because the auction created a great haul for the Texas Rangers by most accounts. "Severely under compensated" is in the eye of the beholder.
The second part of that sentence is true and that's what's stinging the lenders even today. The team was worth far more in 2008. Would they have capitalized fully on it? Was there time? The economy was already swooning by late 2008 surrounding the presidential election and the T.A.R.P. bailout that Fall.
Would they have sold the team before then? Would they have been unaffected by all of that if sold concurrently to those worsening economic conditions? Probably not, but as I said, this document is GSP's opinion and more than a little biased.
We already knew the team had started down this path long before any of us knew about it, this is just the latest pullback of the curtain revealing a little more about how Tom Hicks was swerving all over the road for a good long while before anyone was concerned about it.
If this is true, and a court of law will determine that, not us, then this mess could have been sorted out long ago and Brad Richards....well, you know.
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Especially having a friend who's a Sabres fan.
He’s been going on and on about the new owner as if he were his new boyfriend or something… it’s like being the single gal in a group of friends who are all married. :(
(Ok, maybe that was stupid, but it is depressing)
Sorry for the mess above
It’s just…messy. There’s no other way for it to be.
Thanks to anyone who fights through it, and I highly recommend skimming through the 28 page lawsuit if you’re so inclined because there are a lot of things in there…a lot of really interesting things that will make your blood boil. I still haven’t read it all yet.
All along we asked
“How do people run these businesses all on credit without any of their own money?”
And now it turns out that Hicks shouldn’t have had that credit in the first place after a certain number of years and losses in the mid 2000’s.
If this is true then KPMG screwed up and HSG happily accepted the money that they could never hope to repay.
Liverpool was purchased in February of 2007
So this would have occurred after. Besides, Hicks and Gillette borrowed from the Royal Bank of Scotland to purchase Liverpool.
Writer for Defending Big D
by Brandon Bibb on Mar 31, 2011 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Can we have some good news please?
This is quickly getting old between the season collapse, more ownership issues, other teams having hot streaks right now, players out of the lineup and the Brad Richards contract question.
Please Stars….give us some good news over the next couple weeks!!
Is this one of those situations where the lenders/NHL could have stepped in earlier?
I’m not too up on corporate law, but it seems like if they defaulted earlier that everything could have been dealt with by now.
As well, What repercussions can come out of this, other than delaying a possible sale even further?
It's not really going to affect anything moving forward. Well, it shouldn't.
It’s just another way the lenders can get some of their money back, and we’re not too happy with them these days either.
It’s just a look back at how bad things were even in 2007 (and earlier). It’s shocking to me.
by Brad Gardner on Mar 31, 2011 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions
I've done some auditing work myself, and I'm fairly familiar with the process, as well as the finer details of fraudulent accounting that happened at Enron, and so on...
I’ll have to read through the lawsuit to see what the accusations are, but at a quick glance from what’s posted above…
KPMG will win that lawsuit hands down. Sounds more like a desperate attempt by the lenders to drag some more money out of this thing.
Basically, I read the situation as the bidders for the Stars are not coming up still, forcing the lenders to drop their price to meet demand. They still want to recoup this loss, so now they’re suing KPMG. Odds are, though, that this matter will be settled out of court. With the history of the large accounting firms have had with serious fraud allegations, KPMG won’t want to be associated with them, whether they are actually guilty or not. If this thing starts becoming more public, it can tarnish KPMG’s name, which would do a huge number on their business, especially given the state of the economy still. In order to avoid a long, costly, and public battle with the lenders, I’d look for KPMG to settle the issue out of court. Probably for around half of what the lenders are suing for.
It’s a bold move, and a big win for the lenders. Consequently, as long as it’s settled quickly, it’s a big win for us too. If they recoup money from KPMG, they’ll be more willing to drop the price on the stars.
"I’m going on record that he read it wrong. We’ll see who’s right." - Hull Fan, in regards to Joe not trading Richards
That last bit is what I was thinking
It’s seemed all along like the lenders had a pretty firm target area, and any of this money gretting to them will probably allow the potential buyers to offer something more reasonable than before. At least I hope so
by PSyCo2012 on Mar 31, 2011 1:05 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
You may have a background in auditing but you're not a lawyer...
It’s an initial filing. Any of the real evidence that GSP has, or might obtain, of KPMG’s wrong doing won’t be immediately obvious from that filing. Discovery has yet to have even occurred. I have literally no idea about the merits of the case, but I don’t know how you can either having (not)read a 30 page initial filing.
That's my point why KPMG would win hands down...
I’m not sure how the lenders would have been able to obtain sufficient evidence to win that case. Seems to be more likely that it’s just a publicity stunt instead of a “real” lawsuit.
"I’m going on record that he read it wrong. We’ll see who’s right." - Hull Fan, in regards to Joe not trading Richards
Personally
I don’t think we, as a group of fans, care about who wins that lawsuit. You’re probably right in that nothing will come of it. Hell, when I searched the New York State Supreme Court system for KPMG as a defendant it came up with a hundred different cases (probably more).
I just think it’s really sorry how bad things were for a really long time.
by Brad Gardner on Mar 31, 2011 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't think you'd need an audit to see that hicks was an idiot with money.
See “Alex Rodriguez super contract” for example :-)
The lenders did it because they were just as greedy as hicks was… and now they’re paying the price
"I’m going on record that he read it wrong. We’ll see who’s right." - Hull Fan, in regards to Joe not trading Richards
Yeah well
They’re all going to get satisfaction one way or the other, sooner or later. (Probably later)
And we ultimately get 3-4 seasons of this crap. We pay the price.
by Brad Gardner on Mar 31, 2011 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions
at least we're not the phoenix fans, weho will either pay for it by having their team leave, and losing tons of jobs, or seeing a massive tax hike.
could always be worse
"I’m going on record that he read it wrong. We’ll see who’s right." - Hull Fan, in regards to Joe not trading Richards
grammar nazi
So even in a legal document they don’t know the proper usage of “its” vs “it’s”? Fail. I don’t expect everyone to know this but legal documents are another beast. For example, there’s the story of the two million dollar comma: http://grammarlounge.blogspot.com/2006/11/two-million-dollar-comma.html
I was an auditor for KPMG
It will be impossible for the lenders to win this suit, a settlement of some sort will be the likely outcome. They have insurance for these things. These suits happen all the time for the Big 4 Accounting Firms. Most of the time they get a bad rap. As we all know, the real crooks here are Hicks Sports. Regardless of how thorough KPMG was, they should be able to prove they followed all required professional standards. If you have a crook that wants to hide it bad enough, they can hide their true position from the auditors. Its unfortunate KPMG didn’t find or act on the trouble, but 99.9% of the blame for it is at the feet of HSG.
The Real Deal in section 318
correct if i'm wrong...
but since this is a private group, it’s a whole different ballgame with how the audit is performed, and the regulations they’re required to fulfill as well. Not nearly as stringent as it would be with a public firm. And usually, the Auditor’s disclosure letter to the lenders say something like “we performed this based on what the client gave us and said to us, so it ain’t our fault if they’re lying.”
"I’m going on record that he read it wrong. We’ll see who’s right." - Hull Fan, in regards to Joe not trading Richards
Correct
The audit isn’t entirely different, but less has to be covered than with a public Company. There are generally accepted audit standards that have to be followed, whether you are public or not, including going concern. And yes, you get a rep letter from the company that says we told you everything. And the firms have insurance for this stuff. They will make a small payment just to make it go away, without any admission of wrong doing. The lenders should have no intent to see this to trial, no way they would win. As discussed above, they are just looking to collect a little extra cash to help cover their loss, and so now dragging the auditor into it. Almost standard operating procedure really when a Company like HSG screws up like they did.
The Real Deal in section 318
It’s my understanding that missing both a going concern issue and breach of debt covenant is more serious for indy auditors than is being portrayed here.
It is serious
And so are public company bankruptcies in which auditors are sued all the time, but usually aren’t held liable. The DOJ conviction of Andersen related to Enron was even overturned several years later. If KPMG missed it, it is likely because HSG did a good job concealing it. An auditor could do the best job in the world, it doesn’t guarantee they will catch everything if the client is an unethical snake. Which at this point I believe that all HSG is.
The Real Deal in section 318
KPMG will not take a hit
They will say they audited what was given to them. If Hicks gave them books that were clean, then the audit will be clean.





























