Cosalt, take the gag off

It's been a month since you stopped us talking about Cosalt due to a "legal enquiry". Press charges or release the detainees!

Seriously, can we have our Cosalt Sharechat back please. Now that the company has confirmed by RNS what we were speculating in December it seems pointless to keep us gagged.

RNS 10th January 2013

"Cosalt plc notes the recent speculation regarding the Group's affairs and potential disposals of Group businesses. The Company gave an update on 31 December 2012 regarding its financial position and the on-going discussions with its lenders and the trustees of the Group's main defined benefit pension scheme with regard to a solution to the Group's financial position.

The Company also confirms that whilst those discussions are not yet concluded, it is in discussions with third parties regarding the sale of the operating divisions, Cosalt Offshore and Cosalt Workwear. Discussions with all parties are continuing and there can be no certainty that any agreement will be reached, either with creditors regarding a solution to the Group's financial position or with potential acquirers of the operating businesses.

The Directors remain focused on reaching a solution which will ensure the long term future of both operating businesses; safeguarding jobs and ensuring continuity of service to customers and suppliers. The Directors also acknowledge the important role of these two businesses within their local communities. However, the Directors believe it is unlikely there would be any value attributable to shareholders due to the level of the Group's net indebtedness and pension scheme liabilities."

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?ShareTicker=CSLT&share=cosalt

http://www.lse.co.uk/general-chat-discussion.asp?page=2&TopCode=NS4FX7NQ

I agree, Please, LSE, reopen the Cosalt chat board now. With the release of today's RNS, the Board (David Ross and Trevor Sands) have set out the plan. Why prevent shareholders from discussing it?

Well that’s that then, he sells Offshore/Workwear. Pays off the creditors,’ mostly himself' banks, suppliers and pension and walks away losing nothing. Meanwhile we lose our total investment. What a bast**d.

Unless there is another reason why the chat is closed down………then I concur with all points above. There is now no need for the gagging order.

It's a disgrace that we're still being blocked from discussing Cosalt on here.

For those who don't know, Cosalt is a suspended, listed company employing 250 workers in Aberdeen in the thriving business of support services to the operations in the North Sea and another 70 in Stockport engaged in providing workwear for the same business.

Suspended because it hasn't yet produced it accounts for 2011. Under the Chaimanship of David Ross it's shareprice has plummetted from over £3 to less than 1p and Mr Ross tried unsuccesfully to take the company off shareholders last year for 0.2p per share.

I don't know what it is that we're not allowed to talk about because LSE won't tell us, other than it's a legal enquiry. perhaps we've "dissed" Mr Ross a bit more than we should have done.

Shareholders think it's a gagging order from Mr Ross because he doesn't want people discussing his failings in public, he'd rather be remembered for his philanthropy. (I think that's the term you use for making donations to the Tory party isn't it?).

Anyway, this is what's going on in the North Sea, jobs for which Cosalt employees have the perfect skill set. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-21003704

Perhaps Mr Ross would like to come on here and explain why he can't make the business work rather than forcing us to speculate about it in private, barred from our favourite chatroom on LSE.

http://www.savecosalt.com/forum/

Cosalt on its knees? Why?

If that Dross n Sands had a chippy at the bottom of the Blackpool Tower, they still wouldn’t make a profit… their either at it, incapable of running a business or just plain incompetent.

http://www.scotsman.com/business/energy-and-utilities/gleam-in-the-north-could-mean-50-000-new-jobs-for-oil-industry-1-2735402

Another 4 weeks gone by and we're still gagged here. What's the matter LSE, can you not stand up to a bit of bullying by the lawyers for the rich? I asked you a month ago to release the gag, you said "watch this space". Well I'm still watching and I've lost patience. We have our own private board, it's a shame we can't post here. C'est la vie, au revoir.

I can't credit Oxo on www.savecosalt.com enough for the inspiration. Magnificent effort to keep things going, the wider audience we get the more people will eventually listen. Oxo reminded us what happened in November 2011 with this article in the Yorkshire Post,

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/business/commentary/blackfriar-bargain-basement-offer-a-last-ditch-attempt-to-save-cosalt-1-3998059

That prompted me to dig this one out, from just a month earlier

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/business/business-news/euro-award-for-cosalt-s-joint-wind-energy-venture-1-3837738

and to re-iterate some quotes from the time

Lord Haskins, HLEP, was saying this.

"The Humber LEP board, like the LEP itself, is all about local businesses and local people, and my first task was to ensure all concerned have good strong links to, as well as an interest in, the Humber economy. Now that the Humber has been recognised as the major UK centre for renewables, we need to exploit this and ensure that all parties work together to encourage inward investment into our Enterprise Zones as well as create opportunities for local companies. We have a lot of work to do, but I have total confidence that my members of the board will rise to meet this challenge."

A year earlier, this was David Ross.

"A number of global manufacturers – European, American and Asian – have now made it clear they would like to take advantage of this opportunity in the UK. The south bank of the Humber is being seriously considered by all of those manufacturers. In order for us to benefit it is incredibly important that we think about this on a national perspective, we need to sell a vision to our national policy makers based on international objectives and ambitions. If we get ourselves tied up in local debates and local issues, we will miss out on the opportunity in front of us."

"We need to look at what has happened to Aberdeen," he said, adding that the city was competing with Dundee in the early days. Aberdeen grabbed that chance and has since flourished. Local businesses have become global businesses, led from Aberdeen, unemployment stands at 1.3 per cent and they have world class five star hotels, world class culture and other entertainment opportunities within their community that are the pride of Scotland. They have outstanding university research facilities that support the oil services industry around the world. These are the sort of things that can happen if you grab the opportunity. Just what oil was for Aberdeen in the Seventies, so can the wind turbine and renewables industry be for the south bank and the Humber today."

We were in the right business, right location, it seemed we had the right people. They turned out to be all mouth and no trousers.

And a special message to anybody who wanders by wondering what we're doing at save cosalt. Read those quotes and those articles and you should understand why. To those protecting Mr Ross and his reputation, try getting him to answer some of the questions we're posing, ask him to reflect on those things he said in the recent past, and then decide on your conscience whether it's worth being paid for what you do.

RNS, 7am, 7 Feb 2013

Cosalt plc ("Cosalt" or "Company") provides the following update regarding the potential disposals of its main operating businesses ("Disposals") and its discussions with lenders and the trustees of the Cosalt Group's main defined benefit pension scheme ("Pension Trustees").

The Disposals

The Company is in discussions with potential buyers of its two main operating businesses, Cosalt Workwear and Cosalt Offshore. As reported previously, the Directors continue to believe that the Disposals would not result in any value being attributable to shareholders due to the level of the Group's net indebtedness and pension scheme liabilities, and it is the Directors' opinion that the disposal of each of these businesses as a going concern remains the best way of ensuring their long term future, safeguarding jobs, and ensuring continuity of service both to customers and to suppliers. In reaching their opinion, the Directors have considered their wider fiduciary duties and have acknowledged the important role of these two businesses, both within their industries and within their local communities.

In view of the respective sizes, each of the Disposals would constitute a Class 1 transaction for the purpose of the Listing Rules and would therefore, for so long as the Company remains subject to the Listing Rules and in the absence of the Company being eligible to obtain a dispensation from the requirements of the Listing Rules, require shareholder approval.

Consent to the Disposals would also be required from the Group's lenders (as detailed below) and Pension Trustees. Due to the timeframe involved in the Disposals, and in particular the time required to seek shareholder approval, the support of the lenders would also be required to enable the Group to continue to trade whilst shareholder approval is sought.

Discussions with lenders and Pension Trustees

The Cosalt Group had net borrowings of approximately £17m as at 31 December 2012 and the Company has been in discussions with its lenders and the Pension Trustees with regard to a solution to the Group's financial position. The facilities provided by each of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc and HSBC Bank plc (together the "Banks"), Sovereign Holdings Limited ("Sovereign"), David Ross (a director of the Company) and Oval (2245) Limited ("Oval"), a company controlled by Mr Ross, expired on 31 December 2012. The Banks and Pension Trustees have security over the Group's assets. In addition, the Banks have the benefit of guarantees provided by Mr Ross and Sovereign which expire on 31 March 2013 ("Bank Guarantees").

A summary of the latest position with each of the relevant parties is as follows:

· No agreement has been reached with the Pension Trustees in relation to the resumption of payments to the Group's main defined benefit scheme. The amounts which would ultimately be payable would not be determined until a recovery plan acceptable to the Pensions Regulator was agreed with the Pension Trustees. However, the Pension Trustees have previously indicated to the Company that annual payments of the order of £2.1 million might be required over a 28 year period.

· Oval and Mr Ross have not yet made any demand in relation to the repayment of their facilities. Indeed, whilst no agreement has been reached in relation to the extension of those facilities, the Company has continued to make drawdowns under the working capital facilities.

· Sovereign has demanded repayment of its loan of £1m but to date has taken no further action.

· Having to date reserved their position in relation to their facilities, the Banks have now written to the Company raising concerns that the Directors have expressed an intention to pursue what the Banks describe as an expensive and lengthy process to seek shareholder approval for the Disposals, and whether under those circumstances there would be sufficient funds available to the Group to continue to trade until the Disposals are completed, given the expiry of the facilities on 31 December 2012 and the expiry of the Bank Guarantees on 31 March 2013. The letter also sets out a series of conditions which the Company is required to meet in order to avoid the Banks enforcing their security on or before 28 February 2013.

The conditions required by the Banks (if they are to consider an alternative course of action to enforcing their security on or before 28 February) include that the Company must have funding from lenders other than the Banks in place to meet the costs associated with seeking shareholders' approval in a manner which does not reduce realisations from the Disposals and to fund any losses and working capital requirements of the Group's business from 4 February up to completion of both of the Disposals. In addition, they require that Mr Ross and

cont'd

In addition, they require that Mr Ross and Sovereign extend the expiry date of the Bank Guarantees to a date beyond the expected date of the Disposals.

The Company has had and continues to have extensive discussions with existing and potential funders but no alternative source of funding is currently available to the Group. In the event that the Banks conditions cannot be met, in the absence of the Banks agreeing an alternative course of action to enforcing their security, the Directors consider that Cosalt plc (the parent company of the Cosalt Group) would be likely to enter insolvency proceedings on or before 28 February 2013.

RNS, 17.09, 7 Feb 2013

Update on Cosalt Wind Energy



Cosalt plc ("Cosalt") announces that accounts for Cosalt Wind Energy Limited ("CWE"), in which Cosalt has an 80 per cent interest, for the 23 weeks ended 31 October 2010 and the 61 weeks ended 31 December 2011 have been signed today.

During the period ended 31 December 2011 CWE's principal activity was the installation and service of wind turbines. For the period ended 31 October 2010, CWE reported sales of £483,082 and losses of £119,973, and for the period ended 31 December 2011 reported sales of £932,002 and losses of £503,221. As at 31 December 2011 CWE had net current liabilities of £623,094.

Since 31 December 2011, sales have reduced and CWE has continued to incur losses. As a result CWE is dependent on the financial support of its shareholders including Cosalt plc. As at 31 December 2011, CWE owed £632,882 to Cosalt plc and this has risen to approximately £812,000 at 31 December 2012. As outlined in the statement made by Cosalt earlier today, the financial position of the Cosalt Group, which includes CWE, remains uncertain and as a result the directors of CWE have decided that CWE should cease trading and have prepared the accounts for CWE on a non-going concern basis.