Australia seeks RP intervention in ETPI board feud

Australia has asked the Philippine government to intervene in the corporate board struggle in Eastern Tele-communications Philippines Inc. (ETPI), where an Australian company holds a 40-percent equity stake.

In a letter to Trade and Industry Secretary Juan B. Santos, Australian Amb. Tony Hely said the boardroom squabble could adversely affect the investment of Australian Gigahertz Network International Pty. Ltd. (AGNI) in ETPI.

In particular, Hely requested an investigation on the recent replacement of AGNI’s two nominees in ETPI. AGNI, through its Philippine subsidiary AGN Philippines, had invested A$40-million in ETPI in Oct. 2000 to take up a 40 percent stake in the telecoms firm.

By virtue of its substantial investment, AGNI is entitled to two board nominees who would be able to oversee and protect the Australian group’s interest.

However, there has recently been renewed interest from another investor group represented by former Trade Minister Roberto "Bobby" Ongpin to take over AGNI’s investment.

AGNI said it believes the unexpected replacement of its nominees in ETPI is being orchestrated to allow the Ongpin-led group to take over AGNI’s shares.

The replacement of AGNI’s nominees was orchestrated with the help of a recently-appointed nominee of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).

The PCGG controls sequestrated ETPI shares held by a known dummy corporation of then President Marcos.

As a result of the removal of AGNI’s nominees in ETPI, several key ETPI executives handling finance, human resources, sales and marketing have resigned from the company.

The corporate turmoil in ETPI has also opened the door for other firms to pirate key personnel of the telecoms firm.

AGNI said it is concerned its investment in ETPI may have been damaged. In fact, by employing such a strategy, AGNI fears that its competitor is driving down the value of ETPI’s shares which would then allow an "unfair takeover bid."

Hely appealed to Santos that if AGNI’s claims are correct, "it raises concern about the security of investor’s interest in the Philippines and the impartiality of Philippine government appointees to act in the interests of good governance."