The controversial sale of three properties in Frederiksberg to private equity fund Blackstone was attempted thwarted in the 11. time.

It is apparent from the hastebrev, board member at Frederiksberg Boligfond Verner Obel has sent to the Danish business authority 9. July 2018, shortly before the sale of the fund’s three properties to the Blackstone.

‘As a member of the city Boligfonds board of directors assesses that there is a risk that the fund’s articles of association is being infringed by a planned sale of three of the fund’s properties’, writes Verner Obel, there is beboervalgt member of the fund.

After Verner Obels view would be as comprehensive a sale of the fund’s properties require the unanimous vote of the board – just like at a vedtægtsændring.

Udskældt private equity fund

The u.s. private equity fund Blackstone has several times been accused for having used tax havens.

Blackstone has acquired a large number of properties in Copenhagen.

According to the Berlingskes mapping is the number more than 140 properties, and the value of the portfolio is believed to be close to ten billion. crowns.

Blackstone is working with the Danish firm 360 North – where Nils Jansson, who was known as speedy during the financial crisis, is investeringsdirektør in, and as his minor daughters of the owner.

read more Close

Revised statutes
But in 2006, the fund’s 20 properties scratched from the statute, in which Verner Obel at the time perceived as an editorial adjustment.

It happened in connection with that fund acquired the newly constructed property Nimbusparken. In order to adapt the statutes to the facts voted the board of directors at the time that you removed the properties from the statute.

But the amendment bemoaning Verner Obel in the day that he was to adopt. For with the change it requires is no longer a vedtægtsændring and thus not énstemmighed in the fund’s board of directors, if one is to sell the properties.

– I would at any time have, unlike me, a vedtægtsændring, if I had known that the board of directors on the way to be able to sell the three properties without requiring énstemmighed, says Verner Obel today to Ekstra Bladet.

Thus could Frederiksberg Boligfond proceed with the sale of the three out of the 20 properties to Blackstone. A sale that has created a huge outcry among the residents of the Peter Bangs House, Svalegården and The southern Jutland Town. They have accused the fund to run from its social purpose, which was to ensure that there still is a housing with reasonable rents in Frederiksberg.

Verner Obel still can not understand that the sale of the three properties does not violate against the fund’s articles of association.

– certainly, I think still, that it is in violation with the purpose and spirit of selling the properties. It goes all the way back to the establishment of the foundation as a general association, to ensure reasonable rentals. I makes me angry still over the case, he says.

In the letter, he asks the Danish business authority, which is supreme authority for funds to stop the sale, but he was rejected because he as member of the supervisory board does not have a particular party in the case. It is evidenced by the response from the Danish business authority, which at the same time denies, that it goes against the fund’s articles of association to sell the properties.

the Sale of the three properties, Peter Bangs House, Svalegården and The south Jutland Town to the much-criticised american private equity fund Blackstone has received great attention.

After that, Frederiksberg approved the sale appeared in a deed from 1932 up. Here it says that the municipality and the tenants have an option to purchase the properties at a sale. In addition, should the price be the same as when the municipality sold the properties, which back then was by 15.8 million – a fraction of the Blackstone, which paid nearly one billion dollars for the 428 apartments.

Residents in The Victorian Town is planning to rally in Frederiksberg Boligfond, which they believe has deprived them of their right of first refusal.