On ANZ settlement, the spokesman said “They (Oswals) were very satisfied with the settlement”.
Advertisement
ANZ will take an hit of $145 million after settling a dispute with Indian business couple Pankaj and Radhika Oswal over the receivership and sale of their Australian fertiliser business.
“The settlement, the terms of which are confidential, resolves the A$2.5 billion claim made by the Oswals with ANZ having previously recovered all outstanding loans made from 2005 to the Burrup/Oswal groups totalling around A$1.3 billon”, the bank said in its statement.
Indian business couple Pankaj and Radhika Oswal are “very satisfied” with their settlement with the ANZ Bank, even though it’s believed to be at least $2 billion short of the $2.5 billion they sought.
“They are grateful the Australian justice system allowed them to tell the Australian public what happened at Burrup before and after the receivership”.
According to reports, Oswals have settled their dispute with Australian Taxation Office over a tax bill estimated to be over AUD 100 million.
The bank says settlement will mean a charge of $145 million against the 2016 full year results.
The Oswals’ spokesman said it was “curious” that the bank would be willing to pay a significant amount of money to stop allegations that it claimed were untrue.
Mrs Oswal claimed during the trial that the bank pressured her into signing a guarantee over $US568 million in debts – after initially wanting her to be personally liable for nearly $US1 billion – to prevent her husband going to jail for fraud over falsified security documents.
In turn, ANZ had also accused Oswals of misappropriating AUD 150 million towards their personal use to furnish their laving lifestyles with luxury cars, boats and a sprawling mansion in Perth. “I had a gun at my head”, Mrs Oswal told the trial.
Mrs Oswal alleged in court that the bank threatened her and her family to force her to sign a guarantee over her $1 billion stake in Burrup Fertilisers.
Advertisement
ANZ CEO Shayne Elliott: “In the end, we took the view that in these quite unusual and complex circumstances, the residual risks for ANZ were too great in the Oswal case”. However, it is important to note ANZ settled before it had cross-examined Mrs Oswal or put forward its defence to the allegations about Mr Santamaria, Mr Page and Mr Smith. It is believed ANZ’s insurance will cover the costs and a portion of the settlement.
