Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. 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.
"Wrong, isn't it?"
Yes.
I said at the time 7th June 18
"Lots of shareholders let down badly. Meanwhile directors collect 125% bonuses and share options for targets not yet met.
Will be interesting at the AGM when the remuneration vote comes about."
Amazingly the bonuses got voted through, and I got shouted down for suggesting that the Directors were having a laugh.
But there you go.
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/d41872c6-5d23-11e9-939a-341f5ada9d40
Ms White took home £1.26m for the year, including £656,500 in basic salary, a £404,420 bonus, £77,136 for accommodation and travel and £98,475 for pension contributions. Mr Whiteling received £735,849, thanks to a £251,991 bonus on top of his £409,050 basic salary.
Interserve said the awards were “determined against rigorous criteria set by the remuneration committee”.
So, I assume "rigorous criteria" includes letting the company go into administration?
Wrong, isn't it?
Interserve’s joint venture partner on three energy-from-waste (EfW) plants needs to find £68m today or it risks collapse.
What’s going on
********
Well stranger things have happened.... but I am not getting excited even if its entertaining watching others......
Consent solicitation up on the 28th, I think that has more significance than the 'RNS'ing' out loud that is taking place
They did indeed vote as such, and the consequences were exactly in line. As a sidenote Meta, you don't actually believe DEBs goes up to 24p? lol
Sky rise- Sorry to hear about your loss, it seems you have lost £500k on this? If so that’s Truly disgusting and those responsible should have the book thrown at them.
**correction it was not an AGM, but a General Meeting
A bit more information, results of the AGM were
9022116 votes cast
For 36,651,023 - 40.6%
Against 53,571,093 - 59.38%
Witheld 52,831 - 0.06%
Voted for Trump - Unknown
When taking into account all shares in circulation:
Shares in circulation 161,274,128
For 36,651,023 - 22.7%
Against 53,571,093 - 33.2%
Witheld 52,831 - 0.03%
Votes not cast 709,991,181 - 44%
Voted for Trump - Unknown
The choice given was binary, accept 5% dilution or go into pre pack administration.
90222116 votes cast from a circulation of 161274128. So around 55% participation.
And I will post where the hell I like.
We have been ripped off all our funds in interserve
even with the help of cabinet minister who blessed interserve
after the crash.
I cannot believe in such small period of time how
Debbie White and her compatriots have desroyed
and collapsed this company making us shareholders
loose everything.We should be compensated and
they should be sued which will happen and finish
In jail.
You see,she promised everything was on track and going
well,now all of a sudden we are in administration.
This was planned to avoid another collapse in Uk so
I consider it to be looked into before this goes public
and those responsible are penalized.
Having not owned the shares I have no figures.
What was the response (in percentage terms) to the vote, and were there more than one option open to them with the administrators appointed?
ps It looks like you have moved on to Debenhams........where then after that? Mothercare?
Sorry think you have got a bit confused here? No one has robbed anyone of money, the shareholders voted for the company to go into administration.
Robbing all the PI money
Sorry, do you mind explaining what is "illegal" about it?
This seems to be totally illegal what has been done here I wonder if it would be legal to harm the board or pinch some of there property ?
clp share
You couldn't make it up.
Just think how the others bidding for that contract feel to have lost to Interserve!!!!!!!
I know its pre-pack admin, but how can that be the only option?
WHY IS THRE NO OTHER?
This is where an administrator could get 55 million for that contract and take off a nice slice of debt.
Just for that contract alone. I know its not that simple. But it should be,
The world we live in is where they undercut in bidding to the point they cant make it work. when they have finally bid for enough contract that dont make money and they go bust would you have them negotiating terms to get the money back out if it?
BEYOND A JOKE,
It does (as an ex civil servant) make me wonder if the contracts were given too much money or miscalculated when they did make a profit. If they fiddled the figures to only just make a profit no one would be any the wiser!
Defeating the whole point of bidding for a contracts in the first place.
Perhaps me being cynical
cc2015 you could well be right with the pension pot
they do have a tendency to over egg how short of cash they are and it gets so over full it gets raided somewhat without them even having a shortfall when there done
I am sure it will be ring fenced if your worried, just have to look hard somewhere to check or ring them up directly.
It just makes me realise how there is administration and then there is real money to be made out of it..
Or lost if your bidding against interserve for a contract!
Share holders get shafted and along comes a nice 76 million, contract win for IRV.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-47583251
Outsourcing firm Interserve, which was rescued from administration by its lenders over the weekend, says it has secured £76m in new business with Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC).
It will work on a range of offshore and gas processing projects for ADNOC, which holds the seventh-largest proven reserves of oil in the world.
Control of Interserve, which has 68,000 staff globally, was moved to a new company after shareholders rejected a rescue plan for the business.
The lenders who are now in control include banks RBS and HSBC, and investors Emerald Asset Management and Davidson Kempner Capital.
Managing director Andrew Beaney said the Abu Dhabi contract wins would "contribute to Interserve’s continued growth and success within the oil and gas industry".
You win some you lose some. I am sorry to have lost a bit here, but that's life. I am glad that the staff, many low paid, have seamlessly continued their work, albeit technically for a new company. I should have sold after the first profit warning but didn't - a lesson I never seem to learn. Happily my holding was small, commiserations to those more exposed. I'm moving on, no point crying over spilt milk, but thanks for all the comments - I learn from the input of others more knowledgeable than me.
Actuarial changes which were based on the change from RPI to CPI which was agreed with the Pension Trustees.
Not necessarily as simple as that. The scheme had until recently been in deficit and the move to surplus came about due to a change in actuarial assumptions. The pensions regulator has made public that it has been in discussion with the schemes Trustees. It is certainly in a better place than many but there are various ways that a schemes liabilities are calculated and in this scenario they will probably have to calculate the buy-out position (ie what an insurance company would want to take on the full liability). Frankly, the calculation of pension liabilities for accounting purposes has been ridiculous for a number of years and just a gravy train for advisors.
So, if you are in the defined contribution scheme they are your contributions regardless of what happens to IRV in the next 50 years. the contributions are paid to the pension provider and therefore the risk is that Aviva or whoever goes bust not IRV going bust.
If you can be bothered to read the accounts for 2018 (which it's clear 95% of the posters on this Board haven't based on much of what I read on here) here are the facts for the defined benefit pension scheme. The scheme has assets of £938m and liabilities of £845m. i.e. 11% more than it needs. Therefore the scheme is very well funded and has enough assets that even if IRV went bust tomorrow it can pay the pensions for the next 50 or so years (depending on bond rates of course).
Some of you might like to note that the new owners will of course plunder this over the next 5 years as soon as they are able, thereby further enhancing the returns on their loans and new shares!
Not entirely correct, it does protect 90% subject to an upper limit and there are also quite complex rules about future indexation based on when the service arose and also if you are in retirement, these can have a material impact on the future value of the pension but nevertheless it does provide a significant degree of protection.