Transurban to put Pocahontas Parkway into new fund called DRIVe
Posted Sun, 2007-08-26 11:26
Transurban, Australia's largest toll operator is looking for large institutional investors so it can spread its toll management expertise over a larger capital base in North America. It has formed a new private company called Transurban DRIVe standing for Direct Road Investment Vehicle. Transurban will initially hold 50% of the $2.86b capital of the company and plans to keep its holding longterm to a
minimum of 30%.
The announcement was made this week when the first major investor Capital Partners put $715m into DRIVe taking a 25% stake. Capital Partners (see below) is a Sydney Australia based firm that invests mainly in Europe and North America. They are already a major investor in Transurban stock. Transurban says other investors are doing their research ("due diligence") with the other 25% share in mind.
First toll property of DRIVe will be the Pocahontas Parkway in Richmond VA. The official announcement says that the Parkway has a net value of $236m. An official says the Northern Virginia toll lane projects on the Capital Beltway
(I-495) and I-95/395 will be put in DRIVe's portfolio and draw on its capital too. Transurban plans to continue management of the tollroads and will charge DRIVe fees for that.
Transurban just released their financial report for FY2007. Taking $A= 83c to get US$ numbers, their revenue was $476m up 25% on the previous year. Costs were only up 3% to $152m leaving Earning before interest taxes depreciation and amortization at $328m up 38% over the previous year. The company declared a net loss of $125m for the year, up substantially over the previous year's loss of $51m. The change reflected mostly a turnaround in corporate tax liabilities with tax payments this year compared to large tax credits the year before. Loss on operations was down slightly to $82m.
Toll revenues for the year were $409m comprising:
- Melbourne CityLink $275m
- Sydney Hills M2 $90m
- Pocahontas Parkway $14m
- Sydney Roads Group $17m (for <3 months)
- fees from interoperable ROAM and services $13m
Transurban's chief executive since the company's beginning in 1994, Kim Edwards has announced he is retiring - in early 2009 - giving the company time to find a successor. Under
Edwards Transurban has gone from having a single toll franchise in Melbourne but no tolls to having a valuation, they say of around $10b.
But which Capital Partners?
In writing this report we narrowly avoided misleading readers in a case of mistaken corporate identity. The first Capital Partners we found is based in Greenwich CT. We started writing about out it...
Our in-depth researches via the Google search box then disclosed that there are a minimum of three apparently unrelated international private investment companies named Capital Partners (CP).
By homebase they are:
CP Greenwich CT
CP Sydney Australia
CP New York
Or we can distinguish them by the style of their logos
CP of the serif caps (Greenwich CT)
CP of the plain jane bold black and blue (New York)
CP of the Ionic Column "I" (Sydney)
The multiple identities must lead to a lot of confusion - getting one another's checks, each other's bills, dealing with angry calls of investors of another CP, copping the other CP's law suit etc.
It must become tiresome for their staff to be constantly explaining: "No that's not this Capital Partners, that's the Capital Partners in New York."
What is to be done?
They could each take out a middle initial.
Or a numeric suffix, preferably Roman, but watch out for the XXs.
Why not sue?
It seems most unlikely all the CP companies were formed at exactly the same time. Therefore the first CP has a lawful claim to the CP brand, which the subsequent CPs are infringing upon in a flagrant violation of the intellectual property rights of the first.
But which was first? We don't presume to know, though they each advertise how far back they go. The Sydney CP apparently claims a lineage back to 600BC, to the Parthenon, so we guess they have to be the favorite.
Here surely is a rich opportunity for patent attorneys.
The first case of course would be titled Capital Partners v. Capital Partners.
TOLLROADSnews 2007-08-26
Transurban, Australia's largest toll operator is looking for large institutional investors so it can spread its toll management expertise over a larger capital base in North America. It has formed a new private company called Transurban DRIVe standing for Direct Road Investment Vehicle. Transurban will initially hold 50% of the $2.86b capital of the company and plans to keep its holding longterm to a minimum of 30%.The announcement was made this week when the first major investor Capital Partners put $715m into DRIVe taking a 25% stake. Capital Partners (see below) is a Sydney Australia based firm that invests mainly in Europe and North America. They are already a major investor in Transurban stock. Transurban says other investors are doing their research ("due diligence") with the other 25% share in mind.
First toll property of DRIVe will be the Pocahontas Parkway in Richmond VA. The official announcement says that the Parkway has a net value of $236m. An official says the Northern Virginia toll lane projects on the Capital Beltway
(I-495) and I-95/395 will be put in DRIVe's portfolio and draw on its capital too. Transurban plans to continue management of the tollroads and will charge DRIVe fees for that.Transurban just released their financial report for FY2007. Taking $A= 83c to get US$ numbers, their revenue was $476m up 25% on the previous year. Costs were only up 3% to $152m leaving Earning before interest taxes depreciation and amortization at $328m up 38% over the previous year. The company declared a net loss of $125m for the year, up substantially over the previous year's loss of $51m. The change reflected mostly a turnaround in corporate tax liabilities with tax payments this year compared to large tax credits the year before. Loss on operations was down slightly to $82m.
Toll revenues for the year were $409m comprising:
- Melbourne CityLink $275m
- Sydney Hills M2 $90m
- Pocahontas Parkway $14m
- Sydney Roads Group $17m (for <3 months)
- fees from interoperable ROAM and services $13m
Transurban's chief executive since the company's beginning in 1994, Kim Edwards has announced he is retiring - in early 2009 - giving the company time to find a successor. Under
Edwards Transurban has gone from having a single toll franchise in Melbourne but no tolls to having a valuation, they say of around $10b.But which Capital Partners?
In writing this report we narrowly avoided misleading readers in a case of mistaken corporate identity. The first Capital Partners we found is based in Greenwich CT. We started writing about out it...
Our in-depth researches via the Google search box then disclosed that there are a minimum of three apparently unrelated international private investment companies named Capital Partners (CP).
By homebase they are:
CP Greenwich CT
CP Sydney Australia
CP New York
Or we can distinguish them by the style of their logos
CP of the serif caps (Greenwich CT)
CP of the plain jane bold black and blue (New York)
CP of the Ionic Column "I" (Sydney)
The multiple identities must lead to a lot of confusion - getting one another's checks, each other's bills, dealing with angry calls of investors of another CP, copping the other CP's law suit etc.
It must become tiresome for their staff to be constantly explaining: "No that's not this Capital Partners, that's the Capital Partners in New York."
What is to be done?
They could each take out a middle initial.
Or a numeric suffix, preferably Roman, but watch out for the XXs.
Why not sue?
It seems most unlikely all the CP companies were formed at exactly the same time. Therefore the first CP has a lawful claim to the CP brand, which the subsequent CPs are infringing upon in a flagrant violation of the intellectual property rights of the first.
But which was first? We don't presume to know, though they each advertise how far back they go. The Sydney CP apparently claims a lineage back to 600BC, to the Parthenon, so we guess they have to be the favorite.Here surely is a rich opportunity for patent attorneys.
The first case of course would be titled Capital Partners v. Capital Partners.
TOLLROADSnews 2007-08-26