Talk:Brookfield Corporation

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)