Re: Re: Opportunities in airport security

[Michael Best <michaelbest@xxxxxxxxx>]

Carlyle buys a segment of EG&G

According to Note 7 of the 2000 annual report of PerkinElmer (previously known
as EG&G) in 1999 EG&G sold "its Technical Services segment, including the
outstanding capital stock of EG&G Defense Materials, Inc., a subsidiary of the
Company, to EG&G Technical Services Inc., an affiliate of The Carlyle Group
L.P..."  The Note continues that the Technical Services segment previously
reported as one of five segments of EG&G.

www.perkinelmer.com

Charles Jannuzi wrote:

> As it turns out, Carlyle Group does have connections to private airport
> security. For a start, they own the company that makes high tech security
> equipment for airports. This by the way is a well written article on CG.
> Notice how ex-SEC head Levitt is giving his opinions everywhere about more
> light on accounting and corporate practices while he helps run a very
> secretive one, Carlyle Group.
>
> http://www.taipanonline.com/theories/022602.html
>
> Carlyle's Mysterious Connections Is it Time for Sodium Pentothal?
>
> By Jay Salomon
>
> Back in the early 90s?during the previous round of Middle Eastern
> terrorism?Taipan recommended EG&G (EGG:NYSE), a maker of high-tech airport
> security equipment.
>
> I was asked to do a follow-up.
>
> For days, I found nothing about this large defense contractor. It was no
> longer traded. Then, I discovered that EG&G had been taken over by the
> Carlyle Group, an enterprise about which I knew nothing.
>
> Months later?and after exhaustive research?I begin my reports on the Carlyle
> Group, an almost secret society and a multibillion-dollar powerhouse about
> which almost no one knows anything. And that?s exactly the way Carlyle wants
> to keep it.
>
> Carlyle earns special attention not only because of its huge presence in the
> defense sector, but also because of the imposing list of persons in its
> employ, either directly or as consultants. I doubt the names of James Baker,
> Frank Carlucci, and John Major will ring hollow with any reader. Add to them
> ex-President George H. W. Bush and (in a more convoluted way) current
> President George W. Bush and you have only a brief listing of the
> individuals who may be using their influence to generate profits and
> policies.
>
> But don?t think for a minute that Carlyle houses only very conservative
> Republicans?this company includes high rollers of many political
> persuasions. Not to mention a long association with the Bin Laden family and
> assorted Saudis and other internationals who carry some dubious baggage.
>
> As an investigative journalist, I would expect an enterprise like Carlyle to
> be on the radar screen of many who ply my trade. It may be so. But the
> mainstream press has been incredibly silent on the large number of issues
> raised by the activities of Carlyle. The most inquisitive and successful of
> the fact-finders has been the Guardian. But a recent article demonstrates
> the problems raised by Carlyle?s refusal to discuss much of anything. For
> information for an October report on the Carlyle/Bin Laden connection,
> Carlyle referred the Guardian to someone outside the company who reported
> himself only as a "source familiar with the relationship." And this source
> did little more than "confirm" that the Bin Laden crowd was no longer
> connected to Carlyle.
>
> At the time, the Guardian noted that Carlyle did not employ anyone at its
> Washington headquarters to deal with the press.
>
> Since then, Chris Ullman has been named vice president for corporate
> communications?and the long-blank website (which used to contain nothing but
> a disclaimer stating that "the Carlyle Group does not provide investment or
> other services to the general public") has now been revitalized. But the
> news section of the website has not one offering of any news following the
> November 13, 2001, announcement of Mr. Ullman?s appointment.
>
> Of course, my job normally would be to stick a foot in the Carlyle door and
> try every bit of subterfuge to talk to Mr. Ullman.
>
> That?s the way this game is traditionally played.
>
> Carlyle has been uniquely successful in avoiding the scrutiny of the
> mainstream press as well as public regulatory oversight of its activities.
> But more and more articles, mostly web-based and nontraditional, are
> surfacing about it.
>
> And there?s no guarantee that once the ball starts rolling, mainstream press
> coverage will be any less hostile than that on the web.
>
> What?s more, certain members of Congress are beginning to take an interest
> in the intriguing convergence between influence and profits at Carlyle.
>
> The Enron situation will fuel the need to know more about the activities of
> the company and its principals. For several weeks, the former head of the
> SEC, Arthur Levitt, was lauded on most of the talk shows for his
> unsuccessful attempts to limit the ability of accounting firms like Arthur
> Andersen to both "account" and "consult." I was struck by the fact that
> Levitt was only identified by his former job?never a mention of his current
> position. Not once did anyone ask: "Thanks for being on our show, Mr.
> Levitt. What have you been doing since you left the SEC?" For the record,
> Levitt is Carlyle?s "senior adviser."
>
> When was the last time any executive of a worthy company did not use free
> airtime to give a plug to his enterprise?
>
> Back to Enron. We have the Bush family position in Carlyle and the family?s
> strong ties with former Enron head, Ken Lay, coinciding with a scandal
> inside and outside the Beltway that threatens the integrity of significant
> portions of our financial system. And that?s potentially just a sideshow
> compared to the questions raised by Carlyle-owned United Defense?s important
> position as the eleventh largest defense contractor in the United States.
>
> One troubling Enron question leads to an even more troubling question about
> United Defense. In the case of Enron, the Administration has proudly stated
> that its close ties to the company did not influence its decisions, as
> witness the fact that no effort was made to bail Enron out. And, so far as
> anyone knows, the assertion is true. But many have pointed out that because
> of the appearance of impropriety a bailout would have involved, the
> Administration was precluded from doing the very thing that would have been
> most in the public interest. So, what will it do with a company (to which it
> has demonstrably even closer ties) if questions of ethics or performance
> arise in the middle of a contract?
>
> Early in my research, I came across a curious contract handed one Carlyle
> subsidiary. As I understand it, the Federal Government sought a contractor
> to assist in the sale of assets seized in drug raids. But this was not a
> contract to sell the assets?instead, it was a contract to find a contractor
> to sell the assets!
>
> Multi-billion dollar Carlyle earned the prize. Talk about apparent
> bureaucratic waste?
>
> Which brings us to the question at hand?can Carlyle continue its silence
> much longer?
>
> And if it can?t?and it can?t?then to whom should it talk?
>
> I for one would be happy to volunteer.
>
> ------
> Posted by Charles Jannuzi