Talk:Brookfield Corporation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Much Lacking in Article

A great deal of significant material is missing from this article. What is the company's history? How profitable has it been, in which areas? When was it profitable? When has it lost money, and on what investments? What is its relationship to Edper Investments, and to Edward and Peter Bronfman?

I agree that the article sounds like a one-sided favorable advertisement. Grantsky (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Brookfield Class Action Lawsuit

Looking to add the following material to the BAM page and looking for opinions as to whether it should be added.

“ The Brookfield class action lawsuit arose out of a Brookfield affiliate allegedly using it's $31.5 million debt position issued in December 2007 to transfer the assets from Birch Mountain Resources. PricewaterhouseCoopers(PwC) was appointed receiver of Birch Mountain Resources in November 2008 at the request of Tricap Partners Ltd., after Birch Mountain had defaulted on it's debts. The assets included nearly 1 billion tonnes of limestone reserves, along with permits and leases for limestone and other minerals covering over 700,000 additional acres. The assets were transferred to Tricap Partners Ltd, now operating under the Hammerstone Corporation, a subsidiary of Brookfield Special Situations Group, for approximately $50 million. [1] The assets from the Hammerstone Project were valued at over $1.6 Billion dollars in an independent NI 43-101 Technical Report conducted by AMEC in 2006. The study also looked at market demand and supply in the area.[2] The Birch Mountain common stock traded as high as $7.99 in 2006 and went to less than .01 cent a share by November 2008. The Birch Mountain Shareholders for Justice began their fact finding and filed a lawsuit against Brookfield Asset Management on September 22, 2010 with the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada. The lawsuit challenges the acquisition and transfer of the approximately $2 billion asset from a public company, Birch Mountain Resources, to a private company, the Hammerstone Corporation, a subsidiary of Brookfield Special Situations Group (formerly Tricap Partners LTD). [3]

Both Brookfield and the plaintiff spent much of 2011 arguing on whether the trial should be held in Ontario, where Brookfield Asset Management is incorporated, or in Alberta, where the assets are located. The defendant, Brookfield, filed a motion that the plaintiff lacked jurisdiction in Ontario with the Superior Court of Justice and was upheld by the courts.[4] The lawsuit against Brookfield Asset Management is still on-going as of July 2012 and currently has a pending proceeding with the Supreme Court of Canada to decide jurisdiction. The Hammerstone Project was an expansion of Birch Mountain Resources' Muskeg Valley Quarry in Northern Alberta, near Fort McMurray, where Birch Mountain owned mineral rights on nearly one million acres in the heart of the oil sands region. The Hammerstone Project had approximately 1 billion tonnes of proven and probable limestone reserves for use to meet the projected demands for limestone and limestone products in the Athabasca region to the year 2060, where there is a known shortage of quality aggregate and limestone materials. Limestone products were to include construction aggregate for concrete and asphalt, as well as limestone-based products for cement and flue-gas desulphurization(FGD) for the oil sands extraction process. [5] The Hammerstone Corporation is currently operating the quarry which recently announced a new business contract.[6]

”

Hammerstone2012 (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Evergreen45 (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Brookfield is involved in many different businesses. I would say add it to the article as it relates directly to Brookfield and the page could use some more information and detail on their businesses.

Agreed, they are a huge conglomerate with very little on their page. Thanks for the input. Hammerstone2012 (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

In light of the predatory companies that exist on Wall Street that have wrecked havoc on the markets and companies it is important to show the other side of how companies like Brookfield and Goldman Sachs make their profits at the expense of others. Brookfield didn't get to be a giant by playing all nice, they have left a swath of devastation like a tornado through communities as claimed by some of the companies they destroyed along with shareholder wealth in those companies that they "acquired." Birch Mountain is one such case that will be vetted out in court and will hopefully demonstrate the way these Wall Street companies operate. I think the following answers questions to shareholders of Birch Mountain who lost lots of money looking for an explanation of what happened to their asset. Brookfield is a publicly traded company but lack in transparency because they make acquisitions through their private equity subsidiaries and don't have to disclose. Please include the information below on the BAM wiki site as it is very relevant and helps to poke holes in their opaque operations and hopefully will alert other shareholders and protect them. There are more stories out there that need to be told. For instance: Victims of Brookfield who claim that Brookfield is a "pension thief." Here's a link to their story that needs to be told: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWctCW7PKbI for reference.NewBunkFoss (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So the Hammerstone quarry is a part of Brookfield's private equity group?....very interesting, I was reading about a Hedge Fund, the Baupost Group, managed by Seth Klarman and principal owners of the Highland Company, that was buying up potato farmer's land in Melancthon, Ontario. They have purchased 6,500 acres of land thus far for about $50 million dollars or about $8,000 per acre. The proposed quarry would be on 2316 acres and have 1 Billion tonnes of limestone, just like the Birch Hammerstone quarry. Generated revenues have been estimated of over $40 Billion dollars, valuing the Quarry at somewhere between $6-10 Billion dollars or $3,500,000 per acre. Reference the following links http://www.inthehills.ca/2011/06/back/melancthon-mega-quarry-by-the-numbers/ and http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/02/15/seth-klarman-baupost-quarry/ Looks like limestone is big business. Hammerstone2012 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Put it on the Brookfield page, there is nothing derogatory in the article. I for one will be following to see what happens. As a Brookfield shareholder, it is good to know what is going on when you get to be as big of a company like Brookfield is. Wikipedia is a great source of information for not only the distant past but for present information. Icstarsvb (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

COI editing

I reverted the removal of the class action lawsuit information by AndyWillis111 (talk · contribs), who has a clear conflict of interest on this article. The material is well-sourced and appropriate for the article. GregJackP Boomer! 22:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Birch Mountatin lawsuit is immaterial to Brookfield, and its inclusion in this context is not in keeping with the NPOV goal of Wikipedia. The Birch Mountain lawsuit is described in detail in the Wikipedia entry on the Hammerstone project, where it is relevent. AndyWillis111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyWillis111 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The lawsuit is covered by verifiable, reliable sources, and clearly involves Brookfield. Andy, you need to keep in mind that NPOV does not mean that the article paints Brookfield in a good light, only that it presents both sides. The material belongs in the article, and your continuing to remove it could result in your being blocked, especially if you exceed 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Second, since you have a clear conflict of interest, you should not be editing the article. The best practice is to post information that you would like to add or remove on the talk page, and ask for consensus from uninvolved editors. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the formatting, removed some redundant phrases, and removed the last paragraph of the class action lawsuit section. That paragraph dealt only with Hammerstone's operation of the quarry, and did not deal with either the lawsuit or Brookfield.

Andy, the purpose of Wikipedia is to cover everything that may deal with the subject of an article, as long as it can be cited to reliable and verifiable sources that are independent of the subject. As I noted above, the lawsuit meets all of those criteria, and is also relevant to the subject. If there is additional information that would present both sides better, that can be cited to reliable sources, I would be happy (or any other editor for that matter) to add it to the section. Additionally, if you think that the material should not be included under any circumstances, you can make a request for comment by other uninvolved editors. They'll look at both positions and come to a consensus over what should be included and what should be excluded. Please let me know if that answers your concerns. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 14:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Self-Published Sources

A great number of the claims made are only supported by self-published sources instead of reliable, independent sources. Many of the SPS are unduly self-serving. I intend to clean up the article in the next 7-10 days, barring objection from any uninvolved, non-COI editors. GregJackP Boomer! 20:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Salutations, editors! I noticed all the flags on this article; oy. I'm going to be bold, and where I can find and cite reliable sources, I intend to swap out as much of the SPS as possible and get this article reading more like an encyclopedic entry.Vt catamount (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay folks, SPS have been replaced by reliable sources (or removed outright where unnecessary or redundant) and narrative has been revised accordingly; this renders advert, peacock, and self-published tags irrelevant. We're getting there! Vt catamount (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

(In addition, since I've added over 20 new citations, I'm thinking that the refimprove tag is now obsolete.)Vt catamount (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(along with the third-party tag.) Vt catamount (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed all sections that relied solely upon SeekingAlpha.com - as user-generated opinion pieces, they are not a reliable source. There were also blatant issues of WP:Copyright, but, given the source, that point is moot. Vt catamount (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits of User:Hammerstone2012 which were entirely reliant on self-published sources (http://www.brookfieldclassaction.com). Would be happy to talk it out here, but please, let's stop adding poorly sourced material - we've only recently removed the refimprove tag. Further, let's consider the integrity of the entry before we bog it down with play-by-plays of active court cases (Wikipedia is Not a Newspaper). Bienmanchot (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Added relevant current information in more of a paragraphical format rather than as a list on the on-going court case with a reference from a current article.Writeforachange (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Writeforachange, I see that, however I don't think the play-by-plays of an ongoing court case belong in this entry, at all, regardless of format - which hardly seems fixed at all. I believe this all can be reduced to a single sentence, and after official decisions are passed down should it be expanded to include that result. Remember, "sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged" (from WP:CSECTION) so when it comes to lengthening this area of the entry, I strongly recommend we use solid judgement and only proceed when it's in the best interest of the entry, and the integrity of Wikipedia. Bienmanchot (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Bienmanchot, Added a shortened consolidated factual update Writeforachange (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

First and foremost, to improve readability of the Talk page, on your next reply, be sure to indent before you type - as you can see in the text editor, I've added one (:) to indent my paragraph, so you would add two (::) the next editor would add three (:::) and so on.

Second, I still see your additions as not fully grasping what What Wikipedia Is Not, as they are 1) discussing breaking, unresolved news (WP:NOTNEWS) and 2) discussing events scheduled in the future (WP:BALL). It's not helping the article, lacks an encyclopedic tone, and don't forget, when editing an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, there is no rush. To make these types of additions sends us down the slippery slope of WP:Recentism ("...established articles that are bloated with event-specific facts at the expense of longstanding content—is considered a Wikipedia fault."), and I'm not interested in adding more tags to this article after we've worked so hard to remove so many. :)

Finally, brookfieldclassaction.com should not be used as a source as it's clearly self published and unduly self-serving. If an event is notable by itself it will have been noted in reliable sources. Bienmanchot (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Added relevant breaking news to this case and supporting article Hammerstone2012 (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, thank you! But I don't see how this improves the user's knowledge of the topic, at all; what are we adding here? We already note that the court case is ongoing. Are we just trying to get Lanny's name in there?Bienmanchot (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This is very relevant, it is not everyday that a Canadian icon stands ups for the common man and takes on a billion dollar corporation. This is factual info that is a part of this ongoing saga and has a legitimate source. Please add back..... Thank you Hammerstone2012 (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Birch Mountain class action

I found an update that I put in the other day of this case being dismissed in its entirety. Now looking back on the actual paragraph and who contributed to it, this seems to be a violation of WP:SOAP. The person who created this section made their handle name the plantiff and solely contributed to this one paragraph. I amazed nobody pointed this out earlier (or maybe they did). Point is this whole case was thrown out and therefore this section should adhere to the higher laws of the land and be removed also. And also because this was an obvious WP:SOAP. Anyone object? --SimpleStitch (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If it were dismissed entirely then you can find a source stating that and edit the section to explain the original lawsuit and its dismissal. Removing an entire sourced section is not appropriate. GregJackP Boomer! 06:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi GregJackP Boomer!, I did find the source, take a look - http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2015/2015abqb281/2015abqb281.html - It is reference #42 in the entry. I added it on May 27th. --SimpleStitch (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That is a court opinion and a primary source. You really need to find a secondary source, if possible. I'll rewrite that section based on what is there right now, but it doesn't need to be deleted. GregJackP Boomer! 15:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The case is still active. A notice of appeal was filed May 25th. GregJackP Boomer! 15:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

For your edits you have used this - http://www.brookfieldclassaction.com/case.htm#_civil_notice_of_appeal_may25_2015 - for the appeal, which is a self-published source. This should be removed as this as I have read in the Self-Published Sources section of this talk page that this already been discussed.--AbeFrohman1977 (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup, it's an SPS. Nope, it doesn't need to be removed. See WP:ABOUTSELF. The source is used to support a claim about itself, i.e., its lawsuit. An appeal is not exceptional. GregJackP Boomer! 05:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

AbeFrohman1977, maybe not removed but replaced since it is a self-published and not a primary--SimpleStitch (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization of History Section

For many reasons I reorganized the history section, as well as updated it. Unfortunately I completely forgot to log in and pressed save before I realized I was not logged in, sorry. Harkennen (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Birch Mountain revisited

Recent edits made by Rocksinmyhead do not add anything to the discussion. They are irrelevant as well as unintelligible. In addition, the link does not support the information supplied. If Rocksinmyhead feels strongly about this edit, please supply a reason to include those additional sentences. First of all, what does the information you gave actually mean, and how does it further clarify the information already there, or add in some way to the information already there that makes the issue more understandable? When we make edits we should be adding clarity and relevant information. These edits do the opposite. I am removing, and if the edits go back up I will label that vandalism, unless Rocksinmyhead gives a coherent and convincing explanation of why those edits should remain. Thank-you.Harkennen (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Improve article

I would like to see this article be the best it can be. Please inform User:JamesBWatson what specific steps in your opinion need to be taken for the article to be neutral enough to take down the COI tag. Thanks Harkennen (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Since there has not yet been a response to my request to discuss the COI tag, I will be removing it soon. This is in accordance with Help:maintenance template removal discussing when it is appropriate to remove a COI tag-- "If the maintenance template is not fully supported. Some neutrality tags, such as Conflict of Interest (COI) and Neutral point of view (POV), require the tagging editor to initiate a dialogue (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed." Harkennen (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Re-writing the Birch Mountain section

It has been a while since the Birch Mountain lawsuit has been in the news, (last article I could find was in June, 2016. Now that the issue has come to its conclusion, I propose that there should be a shorter summary of the subject. It seems to me there is an inordinate amount of detail in the discussion, making it basically impossible to understand. It also gives the Birch Mountain issue "undue weight." If there is a general agreement that a shorter version will improve the article overall, please say so, and I will work on reducing the size of the section so it is more readable and more neutral. Thanks. Harkennen (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brookfield Asset Management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923200346/http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2015/2015abqb281/2015abqb281.html to http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2015/2015abqb281/2015abqb281.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brookfield Asset Management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140411021911/http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=c6020eec-ae91-49e0-9fd7-d6eb5094d6c2 to http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=c6020eec-ae91-49e0-9fd7-d6eb5094d6c2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

poor grammar

This sentence does not make sense: "Brookfield's attempt to acquire the Kerzner International properties from closing" Does it mean "prevent from closing"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:c400:8c80:c5a:32e0:12fa:e2cb (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Moving the Birch Mountain materials

I've declared that I'm a COI editor working with Brookfield. I hope to start working through this channel to get some work accomplished on this page, with editor input and discussion of course. I'd appreciate if we could revisit the discussion of the Birch Mountain material. It has undo weight in the article considering that the case was completely dismissed. I'm not arguing that it doesn't belong in the article, but that it has undo weight as its own section. I'd like to submit that the section be removed and that a single paragraph be added in the history section after current reference 10. The paragraph would state:

Extended content

In September 2010, Birch Mountain Shareholders for Justice filed a lawsuit against Brookfield Asset Management challenging the acquisition and transfer of assets from a public company, Birch Mountain Resources, to the Hammerstone Corporation.[1] The case was dismissed in 2015[2] and the appeal was dismissed in 2016. [3] [1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/squeezed-out-birch-mountain-shareholders-take-on-brookfield/article4251993/ [2] https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2015/2015abqb281/2015abqb281.html [3] http://www.brookfieldclassaction.com/Appeal%20Court%20Descision.pdf References

Thanks, Mrn helmers (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply 27-JAN-2019

1. Info on Birch Mountain has been integrated into the 'History' section, per WP:CSECTION.

 Additional changes made:

1. Duplicate and common terms were un-WikiLinked.
2. The one source section maintenance template was appended to the 'Finances' section.
3. Portal bar placed above navbar.

Regards,  Spintendo  11:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy assistance with this @Spintendo:! Mrn helmers (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit request to update AUM

I work for Brookfield Asset Management in the Branding & Communications group. Please update the AUM listed in the infobox to "US$511 billion (2019)." Also, please change the number in the article's second sentence from "$330 billion" to "$511 billion." The source for this change is a letter to shareholders from Brookfield, as well as accompanying media coverage, such as this article in Bloomberg. Thank you, Dvruthven (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply 25-NOV-2019

  Unable to implement  

• The requested changes cannot be implemented because the shareholder letter's page number has not been provided. Kindly provide the page number that the requested financial figure appears upon.

Regards,  Spintendo  17:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: My apologies. Please refer to page 2 of the letter, in the top row of the table on that page. Thank you again, Dvruthven (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit request: update AUM

I work for Brookfield Asset Management in the Branding & Communications group. Please update the AUM listed in the infobox to "US$511 billion (2019)." Also, please change the number in the article's second sentence from "$330 billion" to "$511 billion." The source for this change is the letter to shareholders from Brookfield. You will find the AUM number referenced on page 2 of the letter, in the top row of the table on that page. You will also find this number referenced in accompanying media coverage, such as this article in Bloomberg. Thank you, Dvruthven (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Please provide the reference as formatted in the correct citation system used by the article, taking care to include the |page=2, |date=, |author= and |title= parameters. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, these formatting changes are generally expected to be done before submitting the request for review. Regards,  Spintendo  23:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Please update the AUM listed in the infobox to "US$511 billion (2019)." Also, please change the number in the article's second sentence from "$330 billion" to "$511 billion".

Thank you, Dvruthven (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 9-DEC-2019

  Edit request implemented    Spintendo  17:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Article makes no sense

I looked this up because Brookfield acquired Westinghouse Electric. The article gives the history of a Brazilian-Canadian electric company up to 1979, then a para (obviously the subject of a lengthy edit war) about a lawsuit, then jumps to 2018 and various scandals. There is no link and no real indication about what the company does JQ (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Request removal of false Parent company

I work for Brookfield Asset Management in the Branding & Communications group.

Please revert the recent addition to the infobox of "Anderson Holding Inc." as the parent company of Brookfield Asset Management. This is unsourced and untrue. Thank you, Dvruthven (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Y Done, I reverted the unsourced content -M.Nelson (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Resolving undue weight issues

I would like to propose that the "Bribery allegations" and "Links to Qatar" sections of this article be folded into the History section. These two sections are examples of undue weight in the current context of the article, whose only other sections are "History" and "Finances," both of which are very broad in comparison.

The "Links to Qatar" section, in particular, is entirely superfluous, and appears to insinuate something negative that isn't there. The History section already states that the Qatar Investment Authority is "a major investor in Brookfield," which is an appropriate level of detail for the article. Disclosure: I work for Brookfield Asset Management. Thank you, Mrn helmers (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: In the time since I posted the above proposal, an editor (who appears to have created a Wikipedia account a few weeks ago with the sole purpose of attacking Brookfield) added three new paragraphs on legal incidents involving Brookfield, two of which were lawsuits against the company that were dismissed and a third (the AIG case) which was a lawsuit initiated by Brookfield that was eventually settled. Considering the length and current focus of the article, the new added content is all well outside the article's scope and should be removed.:If anyone watching this page is reading this, please consider removing this out-of-scope/undue weight content, or at least adding your thoughts to this thread, as I am refraining from editing the article directly due to my conflict of interest. Thank you, Mrn helmers (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Request to fix undue weight and out-of-scope sections

I work for Brookfield Asset Management and would like to make a request to correct scope/weight issues in this article. Please note that I proposed these changes in the previous section on the Talk page and allowed time for a discussion, and no opposition to my proposal was voiced since that time.

1. Please fold the "Bribery allegations" section into the "History" section, as it is undue weight for this to have its own section.
2. Please remove the "Links to Qatar" section, as the History section already states that the Qatar Investment Authority is "a major investor in Brookfield," which is an appropriate level of detail for the article.
3. Please remove the "Lawsuits" and "Sexual assault claim" sections, which relate to lawsuits that were either dismissed or settled and did not attract widespread coverage. These topics are outside the scope of this article, considering its current length and level of detail.

I will also note, as I did above, that all this content was added within the last few weeks by an editor who appears to have created a Wikipedia account for the sole purpose of attacking Brookfield.

Thank you, Mrn helmers (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Mostly done. Bribery allegations folded. (I have to say, having everything in one big section by time isn't ideal, but this is how this article has been done until now; any editors who are interested are encouraged to reorganize, but those editors are not me.) Links to Qatar section removed, since as you write Qatar already mentioned in the History action. Adding the Financial Times reference there, though. Dismissed lawsuit removed. AIG Lawsuit section however moved to History, since it's hard to agree with the claim that a lawsuit ending in a payment of $905 Million is not worthy of mention. Many people would consider that a rather substantial sum of money. Sexual assault claim removed, since this is an article about a financial asset management company, and hiring a doorman is quite a few levels away from that. --GRuban (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Undiscussed merge of Brookfield Residential

Recently, MrsSnoozyTurtle merged Brookfield Residential into this article without proposing or discussing this action first. As I understand WP:MERGE, this can only be justified if the merge is uncontroversial and undisputed. WP:MERGE also says: "Articles that have been separate for a long time should usually be discussed first"; the two articles in this case have been separate for almost nine years with no "content fork" complaints until now that I've seen. In light of this, the merge should be undone (by a non-COI editor - see my disclosure above) and those who support the merge should establish consensus first.

As for the question itself of whether the articles should be merged or should remain split, I'll stress that Brookfield Residential is a notable company in its own right, with significant coverage that goes back many years. It is a standalone company that operates independently of its parent company Brookfield Asset Management, not a mere business division. But regardless, the merge should be reverted on procedural grounds until consensus is established in favor of a split.

Pinging editors who have edited either article recently: Onel5969, Blairall, Wilsoargos, AwfulSpy, RJFJR, Goszei, Mebden, Anders Feder, Tom.Reding, Devokewater. Dvruthven (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Since Brookfield Residential Properties Inc. is a multi-billion dollar company that is separate and distinct from Brookfield Asset Management (with different key people and headquarters in a different city), the article should not be merged unilaterally without any discussion at all. Although the article certainly needs significant improvement, it appears that the content in the Brookfield Residential article is different from the content in the Brookfield Asset Management article, and it does not merely copy part of the Brookfield Asset Management article. As a result, it appears that a discussion would have been worthwhile before the merger, and I feel that the merger should be undone. I would like to stress that I have absolutely no connection to Brookfield or any of the other editors. -- Blairall (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Blairall. Would you be comfortable undoing the merge in light of the time that has passed since I started this discussion? No one has voiced support for the merge or countered the strong points you made in your comment (including the editors who carried out the merge, whom I made sure to ping), and, as I noted earlier, the burden of proof for demonstrating consensus should be on those who support the merge. Thanks, Dvruthven (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your message regarding that. I've been tied up with a bunch of other work, so I will look into this matter when I get a chance later. -- Blairall (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Further to my comments above, I'm restoring the separate Brookfield Residential article. -- Blairall (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Request to revert non-NPOV edits

Hi, this is Marion. A few edits recently made to the article are not NPOV and should be undone in the Lawsuits and controversies section:

• The presentation of the Birch Mountain lawsuit was recently edited in a way to make it less NPOV, using words like "swindled" and the speculative "run into financial troubles" as motive for action. This section should be reverted to how it was presented on and before February 11.
• Additional unnecessary details were added to the AIG lawsuit discussion. Please replace the following: "The suit stemmed from AIG's acceptance of a $182.3-billion bailout package from the federal government, which Brookfield argued overturned AIG's bankruptcy protection. The insurance firm countersued, claiming that Brookfield was trying to get out of its $1.5B debt to AIG. The litigation ended with Brookfield paying $905 million to settle the lawsuit." With the previous version: "The suit stemmed from AIG's acceptance of a $182.3-billion bailout package from the federal government. The lawsuit backfired and the litigation ended with Brookfield agreeing to pay $905 million to settle the lawsuit."
• The newly added paragraph beginning "In March 2013, the Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation..." is based on blog post written by a non-notable person and should not be considered reliable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.
• The paragraph beginning with "In 2013, a Brazilian prosecutor..." has an extraordinary amount of detail for an event still under investigation. To bring a bit of balance back to the paragraph I suggest removing the most recently added detail: "Later it was revealed that the whistleblower was the former CFO of a Brookfield subsidiary. She claims she was fired for refusing to participate in Brookfield's bribery scheme."
• It is irrelevant to add "Donald Trump's son-in-law" as a modifier to "Jared Kushner" and should be removed.
• The statement "which is decades behind leading companies" is not supported by the source and sounds like original research. It should be removed.

Thank you for your attention. Mrn helmers (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Some feedback and edits:

Did not accept Birch Mountain requests as made but some edits to this section were warranted. The use of the loaded term "swindled" was not an allegation present in the citation, this was edited.

The SIPR allegations at first glance appear credible enough for a controversies section, the linked organization FFJ appears to be managed by a team of credible journalists tied to mainstream publications. Light edits made to this section for readability and to remove excessive verbiage.

Regarding the Brazilian allegations, actual filed charges are notable.

Kushner reference is relevant to the next sentence and does not seem inflammatory in this context. WilsonP NYC (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Since WilsonP NYC has responded to this request, I am closing this as answered. If additional edits are wanted, a new request can be opened below. Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Canvassing?

I randomly came across User talk:Lamro#Brookfield Asset Management edit request to revert non-NPOV edits and it struck me as a potentially disruptive practice: selectively inviting additional editors when one disagrees with previous edits would seem to be a good mechanism to tilt the article's pool of active editors to one's POV (as opposed to doing the same to alleviate a lack of editors). Note that I am not aware if there is any policy on the subject and therefore not alleging any breach of such. But I would personally hesitate to act in this manner and felt like bringing this to the attention of people working on the article might not be wrong. --K. Oblique 00:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Update AUM

I am requesting that the AUM in the Infobox and in the Introduction be changed from US$688 billion to US$725 billion, according to the following source: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/20/the-ceo-of-the-worlds-second-largest-alternatives-firm-is-optimistic-about-a-light-recession.html I had made this edit directly, but it was reverted by an editor who did not explain his reason for the revert. Thanks for your help. Mf419 (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Ptrnext (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ptrnext. Just want to show my appreciation for updating the AUM in the Infobox and Introduction. All the best, Mf419 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Brookfield (corporation). Consensus developed through discussion.(non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Brookfield Asset Management → Brookfield Corporation – Brookfield recently executed a corporate action (third party news article here, company article here) where the parent company was renamed from Brookfield Asset Management Inc. with ticker TSX:BAM.A to Brookfield Corporation with ticker TSX:BN, while simultaneously spinning out a new company named Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. with ticker TSX:BAM. Given Brookfield Corporation is the ultimate parent, should this article be named as such? (and any required consequential edits to the article itself... of which I know the ticker in the info box needs to change, but not sure what else) CDB-Man (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Tagging @Mf419 as you may have an interest in this matter. CDB-Man (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. Note that Category:Brookfield Asset Management should also be renamed. 162 etc. (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as it's not the common name. As well, I would point out that this article is not that lengthy, and this may run the risk of creating an additional article for the minority-owned subsidiary, Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. subsidiary. Finally, the Brookfield parent company will frequently perform various corporate actions that result in additional publicly-traded entities. Arguably, the article would be better named Brookfield (if that's available), so as to encompass all, or most of those entities, but we generally do not rename encyclopedia articles every time a company undergoes a change in their corporate legal name. Dmehus (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  Agree that Brookfield is likely the best name, potentially implemented as Brookfield (corporation) or something to that effect. While Brookfield Asset Management is common today, given that Brookfield Corporation is the new name of the master parent entity, it will likely be the common name going forward, alongside just Brookfield which is by far the most common.

  Regarding "minority-owned subsidiary", I'd like to point out that for all of the Brookfield related entities, Brookfield Corporation (the parent) has a minority economic interest, but de facto effective control either through a majority of the voting shares, or through embedded contractual obligations. All of these entities have separate articles, and all of them operate very different lines of businesses. CDB-Man (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: To form a clearer consensus echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'm an admin, and came here to try and close the discussion. I don't see a consensus, but I'm wondering what you would all think about moving this to Brookfield (corporation). -- SamuelWantman 07:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @CDB-Man:,@Dmehus:,@162 etc.:, would Brookfield (corporation) be acceptable to each of you as the title? -- Aervanath (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

    Sam and Aervanath, I would support that (probably would prefer Brookfield (company), but either is fine), as both would allow for future potential merges of the many Brookfield majority-owned subsidiary entities that probably would be better as part of a larger article. As well, Brookfield is clearly the common name for the combined group of legal entities, so I'd be happy with that. Dmehus (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Investment

Upcoming aerocity near raipur airport. 103.90.75.136 (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)