Agreed, if there is no opposition from the CLN holders (and they have been looked after in different ways) then this should be a routine rubber-stamping exercise by the courts and the delay will be them literally waiting for their slot for the case to be heard. Never been that simple for FRR before though so I am hesitant to bank on this though.
If I was to guess right now, then I would say news late September/early October but we'll see!
It's been a month since the co. was liquidated and who knows how long it will take to get confirmation or otherwise. It may well depend on the CLN holders and what their approach is. Hoping they'll have hedged and won't want the lawyer costs associated with going for recourse which if the advice SN took is accurate they won't and we can move forwards with a better balance sheet but a black mark against FRR which will hopefully be forgotten if we start to hit targets and report on them properly.
I think app is right on this one. Id be surprised if sn didnt know what he was going to do with the clns when they were first issued. After all, why would they be attributed to the subsidiary in the first place if not to protect the parent company. Whoever held the clns mustve known the situation initially and entered in to the agreement on that basis
It all depends on what the guarantees were provided by the parent company and as sn has just dismissed them with a swot of his hand im guessing there were no guarantees
Either frr will end up with nothing to answer or they will end up coming to a compromise with a lot lower repayment figure
But im guessing they are as good as gone with no come back on frr
Two points to think about FRR showed the interest payments on their balance sheet (Ownership) and "to deceive" the other lawyers would have to prove "gain". At the moment their is no gain so the case revolves around has FRR accepted ownership of the debt or were these goodwill payments to help out a subsidiary - a very fine point of law. I think that FRR will win this
Appw9 one would think so but a lawyer can argue that the intent was to deceive and that the parent company were happy to pay the interest payments so therefore by association took ownership of the debt
Not sure I agree that this is a very fine point of law. If, and the following is qualified by this assumption, if FRR holding company has not provided any guarantee for the subsidiary then the subsidiary can fold without liability to the holding company. Isn't this just what we've been told in the RNS? So, even if the holding company becomes hugely valuable, it doesn't change the legal position on whether the subsidiary can go to the wall and avoid repayment of the CLNs. Just imho. No advice intended.
'Dubious means' sums the last few years perfectly. Lets face it this is just beyond SN, trying to be up there like his father was and has so far failed miserably. Shame Daddy isn't around to witness these failings in person.
I now do not expect any real news (BoD buys/good ops update) until the conclusion of the court case. Reason - the lawyers at the moment will point to FRR as a basket case with little or no asset and struggling so no point in proving in favour of the claimant as its a fine point of law that the company FRR holdings v the parent company FRR they/both are worthless with a very low market capital, close to being bankrupt and paying contractors in shares rather than money. However, if BoD are buying shares and ops showing an improvement and GG allowing access to market and potential P1's to be booked then we are a company on the up and just trying to avoid paying off debt buy dubious means. The court will look at this avoidance scenario more closely. Therefore, I expect HY results to be dreadful. Any good news (if any) being held over till after the conclusion of the case.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.