Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Just noticed a RNS this morning on a new BoD appointment - one of a series of appointments it seems in the works with the financial backing of the new "owners".. not sure how a RNS has been issued (maybe due to bondholders?) but a gentle reminder that this company continues to trade and that solutions were found to keep the company afloat - just that the old shareholders were never asked to assist financially... never mind... not the first time nor the last I suspect this happens
You can offset them against any tax on your gains. I hoped something could have been done by the courts to address the way the rug was pulled on shareholders after they gave MA 2 more weeks to come up with a better offer. This action caused many to rush to buy shares and is despicable and underhanded move, that IN LAW is called :- 'Taking a Pecuniary Advantage for Gain' ...and can carry a prison sentence of up to 10 yrs.
A rarely used law ie, 'Knowledge Aforethought' means much the same and is a criminal act if used to foreclose on shareholders if they mislead investors beforehand.
MA should have challenged on behalf of ALL shareholders, not just for his own interests. If i had the money i would have. The point in law was giving MA two weeks to make a better offer, then THE VERY NEXT DAY the lenders pulled the rug, misleading genuine investors in the process. IMO, they should have allowed MA those extra 2 weeks. They obviously did this to prevent MA from attempting to recover some of his 150m stake and to prevent him taking control?
"Are our shares lost?
Mine are still showing in my II account with no value, but show my book cost so makes my account look very bad! I dont know what to do with them"
You can't do anything with them, the company has been de-listed, you can only trade them on a private basis if you can find a buyer and come to some legal tansfer arrangement with them. You'd need a Solicitor to draw up a contract and pay the Administrator to amend the register.
Because the company, Debenhams PLC, is likely to be liquidated then it's unlikely anyone will want to buy them from you. All it's assests have been already sold. It's in Administration.
The company hasn't been "struck off" yet, so it's still a legal entity. Eventually HMRC will give it a NIL value status and you can use the loss to offset any capital gains (over the threshold ) you've made. Some will do that before the NIL value status has been granted.
You could ask the broker to remove the entry. They should remove them once the company has been dissolved and NIL value has been granted. They probably leave the entry available to assist you with claiming loss relief.
Are our shares lost?
Mine are still showing in my II account with no value, but show my book cost so makes my account look very bad! I dont know what to do with them
"????"
Yes, Debenhams Group. Secured another £50m facility to cover Christmas trading.
There's a payment to bond holders due in January if memory serves me well.
I haven't seen any further news on the liquidation of Debenhams PLC. I have a "web" checker running on the FTI site (it checks once a month), but I dont think there's been an updated since September.
I guess you could use the expected loss on your tax return without waiting. I'd chance it. I mainly offset using SEIS/EIS.
????
Debenhams plc
Supplemental information on new financing
RNS Number : 3499P
Debenhams plc
09 October 2019
9 October 2019
DEBENHAMS GROUP
Supplemental information on new financing
Debenhams Group confirms that following the successful consent solicitation concluded on 6 September 2019 (the "Consent Solicitation"), Debenhams has raised a new secured £50m facility with certain of its existing lenders. This provides the group with an additional £50m liquidity in order to cover peak trading, in particular the weeks running up to Christmas. This coincides with the normal seasonal peak of inventory requirement for the group. Debenhams expects its peak (Q1) and low (Q2) inventory levels for the financial year ending August 2020 to be within the c. £450m to £270m range, based on historical trends, noting that the portion of ineligible inventory is relatively consistent across the year, with a small increase around the Christmas peak trading period.
The facility is subject to substantially the same pricing terms and utilisation mechanisms as the £200m first lien facility announced on 29 March 2019, as refinanced by the £200m first lien facility announced on 9 April 2019 (as amended from time to time). Through the Consent Solicitation, the holders of the £225,000,000 5.25% Senior Notes due 2021, of which £200,000,000 remains outstanding (ISIN: XS1081972850; Common Code: 108197285) approved certain amendments to the Trust Deed and the Intercreditor Agreement, including permitting the drawing of a further £50 million of secured indebtedness. The group hereby announces that the Fifth Supplemental Trust Deed has been executed by all the parties thereto and the Proposed Amendments contained in the Fifth Supplemental Trust Deed have become effective. Capitalised terms used and not otherwise defined in this paragraph have the meaning given to them in the Consent Solicitation Announcement released by Debenhams on 3 September 2019.
www.investegate.co.uk/debenhams-plc--irsh-/rns/supplemental-information-on-new-financing/201910091625493499P/
DEBENHAMS GROUP
Directorate Change
Debenhams Group announces today that it will be appointing Mike Hazell, currently Group Finance Director, as CFO and to the board of the Group. Mike, a seasoned finance professional, has been with Debenhams since February 2010. He previously held finance roles at Sky and Pfizer, among others. Following a handover period, Rachel Osborne, the current CFO, will be stepping down from the board and leaving Debenhams to take an external role.
Stefaan Vansteenkiste, Debenhams' CEO, said:-
"I would like to thank Rachel for her important contribution to the successful progress of our restructuring during her time at Debenhams. I am pleased that we have such a strong internal candidate for the CFO role, with Mike having played a key part in the refinancing and restructuring activity over the past 12 months. I look forward to working with him and the rest of the leadership team on delivering our turnaround plan."
DEBENHAMS GROUP
Outcome of Challenge to CVA
Debenhams notes that the judgment in court this morning has affirmed that its CVA proposal continues to be effective. The challenge to our CVA was rejected on four of the five grounds of challenge, and the remaining ground has been addressed by the deletion of a technical provision of the CVA relating to landlord forfeiture.
https://www.investegate.co.uk/debenhams-plc--irsh-/rns/outcome-of-challenge-to-cva/201909191109009745M/
Stefaan Vansteenkiste, Debenhams' CEO, commented:
"We are delighted that the court has today confirmed that our CVA is effective and will continue to be implemented as planned. We note that the only aspect that the judge required to be adjusted was a technical provision of the CVA relating to landlord forfeiture provisions.
"Our proposals had unprecedented levels of support from our landlords and today's outcome is good news for our 25,000 employees, our pensioners and suppliers. We retain the support of our lenders, and everyone at Debenhams can continue to focus on trading ahead of the important Christmas period."
"Not sure if MA is contesting this as part of his more general application."
No it's just the CVA as far as I understand it, that happened post Administration and after the business was sold to Celine.
" they are merely following orders in conducting the administration."
They don't follow orders. They are there to liquidate the business, Debenhams PLC, Administrators aren't like a sub contractor. They are Court appointed. Creditors get to choose which firm, but the condition has to be granted by a court. The court can be petitioned by either Directors or Creditors.
"It all comes down to how the court judge MA's appeal."
It's only against the CVA as far as I understand it. If the court finds against Debenhams (Celine) they'll challenge it or apply for Administration of the new business. It's still very likely that even if Debenhams fails to defend the CVA the liquidation of Debenhams PLC will proceed. That's unless there's a seperate court case.I doubt that will happen, as it would be cheaper, and easier, for SPD to pick up the business in administration.
What happens is anyone guess, very few ever get turned over.
"No news coming through on that"
It should come up here when it does: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/?filter_type=judgment&search=&tax-single-judgment-jurisdiction=-1&tax-single-court=-1&date-range-after=&date-range-before=
Not sure if MA is contesting this as part of his more general application. No news coming through on that, but it would seem a very odd thing if he were to be successful and then sued the administrators but found he was time barred. Not sure if there's anything to sue them for, in fairness, they are merely following orders in conducting the administration. It all comes down to how the court judge MA's appeal.
https://www.fticonsulting-emea.com/~/media/Files/emea--files/creditors-portal/cip-emea-public/debenhams-plc/sealed-court-order-in-respect-of-fee-application-16-september-2019.pdf
2. In accordance with 98(2)(c) of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, Chad Griffin, Simon Kirkhope and Andrew Johnson be discharged from liability pursuant to paragraph 98(1) of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in respect of any act or omission in their individual capacity as administrators of Debenhams, such order to take effect from the date falling 56 days after the date on which the final progress report is notified to creditors of Debenhams (or such other date as the Court thinks fit), save in respect of claims notified to the Joint Administrators of Debenhams before that date.
"but it's nice to know MA is not giving up on us small investors"
Ha ha ha ha ha
You reckon that's his motive? How very thoughtful.
Oh, and ha ha
thanks again PEARLS for highlighting the new development high court case GOOD READ
weather we get something back or not , and we might be last in line for any return
but it's nice to know MA is not giving up on us small investors
and will carry on fighting this all the way no matter how long it takes
to get his and our money back from these robbers
i won't be posting for awhile now' until something positive
turn up again
REGARDS
yea yea yea no value for shareholders no value for shareholder no value for shareholder
in every post, 10 times a day its alright for you, and your bond holder mates..
sold out before did you , now you are on here to wind us up
do you work for DEB , sound like it
as soon as PEARLS post something positive to give hope, you are on here like a shot
to wash it down the drain with your long know it all post where DED can do no wrong
you just don't want us shareholders to get anything back do you
so you are on here twisting the knife, hoping we would go away and die
i wish you would stop posting on here
and leave this BB to PI that's still own DEB shares and would like to know
there is a glimmer of hope of getting something back to hold on to
please go away
Just for clarity, and they way I understand it, if the court case is lost by Debenhams the papers are reporting that it will go into administraion. That's not the same administration as your shareholdings are caught up in, but would effect the shareholders of Celine.
The bond holders of Debenhams would still be there, but they would become creditors of the Celine owned Debenhams. Any sale of assets would be to satisfy the creditors of Celine. Not Debenhams PLC.
The bondholders have already been paid to amend the terms of the bonds ( a previous Consent Solicitation) to reflect the change of ownership of the Debenhams buisness to Celine.
As I say, that's the way I understand it.
"I have one question for you if and that is a big Deb managed to become profitable and decides to relist again will we as ex-sh get anything at all?"
No, your shareholding is in Debenhams PLC, not the new vehicle (Celine). I posted a link earlier from the Administrators notifiying of an upcoming court case, 16 September, asking the court to approves their fees and release them from their responsibilities after the final report to creditors. I would imagine at that point, the final report, they would apply to have a "strike off", in all practical terms that means shares of the the once listed company would be cancelled and disappear. The actual business (Debenhams) is now owned by Celine. If it was relisted at some time in the future those shares would be initially owned by the shareholders of Celine. Some of the owners of Debenhams bonds. Shareholders aren't creditors, so they haven't been included in the creditor vehicle (Celine). Neither have all creditors. That's the way I understand it anyway.
I had to admit I initially didn’t read it the same way you did, thanks for the clarification.
I have one question for you if and that is a big Deb managed to become profitable and decides to relist again will we as ex-sh get anything at all?
"Deb latest action is simply giving hints to the court that they did something dodgy through the pre-pack process. Correct me if I’m wrong always happy to hear your view"
Not sure how you come to that conclusion. I would think it suggests the opposite, that the business won't stand another period of administration. We can only speculate, but that would be my reading and the message I think it would send. By design or not. The over arching objective of compaines coming out of administraion is to survive as ongoing enterprise and attempt to satisfy creditors. In this case, both the unsecured lenders (bond holders) and the majority of the landland lords and creditors were protected (to differing degrees). It's the "differing degrees" that appears to be the basis of CPC arguement (and issue). More debt, in my opion, re-inforces the arguement for the need for the CVA and strenghtens Debehams position. If it does go back into administraion I can only see one party benefiting and I don't think that will be the employees, lenders or present or past shareholders.
Thanks devon your input is always valuable. Deb latest action is simply giving hints to the court that they did something dodgy through the pre-pack process. Correct me if I’m wrong always happy to hear your view
" super senior debt"
Ranks ahead of the bond holders and well ahead of the shareholders. So, if the cout case is successful for SPD, and the company is pushed back into administration, SSP are top of the pile for any distribution. Obviously behind HMRC etc. These lender must at least be confident that the business, as it exist today, is a going concern. That might imply the court case, in their opinion, is going to find in favour of Debenhams. I bet it's not cheap debt for the obvious reason....
More debt I see.
Senior debt, super senior debt; what's next: super super senior debt?
Another £50,000,000 of Super Senior Debt.
September 6, 2019
DEBENHAMS RETAIL LIMITED
Required Consents received in Consent Solicitation
Debenhams Retail Limited ("DRL") hereby announces that the consent solicitation it announced on September 3, 2019 (the "Consent Solicitation") with respect to the £225,000,000 5.25% Senior Notes due 2021, of which £200,000,000 remains outstanding (ISIN: XS1081972850; Common Code: 108197285) (the "Notes") issued by Debenhams plc (in administration) (the "Company") has been successful.
As a result, DRL has obtained the required consents necessary to amend certain provisions of the trust deed dated July 2, 2014 between the Company, the Subsidiary Guarantors named therein and Citicorp Trustee Company Limited, as amended, supplemented, waived or otherwise modified from time to time prior to this Consent Solicitation (the "Trust Deed") and, subject to receiving consent of the other parties thereto in due course, to amend certain provisions of the intercreditor agreement dated March 29, 2019 between the Company, Lucid Trustee Services Limited (the "Trustee"), GLAS Trust Corporation Limited (the "Security Agent") and various creditors of the Company named therein, as amended, supplemented, waived or otherwise modified from time to time (the "Intercreditor Agreement") as set forth in the consent solicitation statement dated September 3, 2019 (the "Consent Solicitation Statement").
Capitalized terms used in this notice and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings given to them in the Consent Solicitation Statement.
The Proposed Amendments were sought to (i) permit the drawing of a further £50 million of secured indebtedness by a member of the Group and to allow some of its indebtedness to incur interest that capitalizes and (ii) elevate some or all of the Secured Hedging Liabilities to be paid on a super senior basis, prior to and senior to the liabilities owed to the New Money Facility Agreement lenders, agents and arranger and to the liabilities owed to certain agents including the Security Agent and the Trustee.
The adoption of the Proposed Amendments required the consents of Holders of at least a majority in aggregate principal amount of the then outstanding Notes voting as a single class. A majority of Holders voting as a single class have submitted their consents prior to the Expiration Time. As a result, the Proposed Amendments, to be implemented by the execution of the Fifth Supplemental Trust Deed and the Second Supplemental Intercreditor Agreement, will bind all Holders of the Notes, including those that did not deliver their consent.
Consent given:
https://www.investegate.co.uk/debenhams-plc--irsh-/rns/required-consents-received/201909061301335418L/
It looks like case will be upheld against Debenhams, their lawyers are just focusing on blame game, he wishes, he wants, she is vindictive