The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen 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.
Pearls, I guess a CVA might help with reducing rents/stores and future overheads - but has nothing to do with reducing the existing debt. The company could not continue with a £500 million debt pile so the BoD obviously thought it was the priority and a CVA could happen once the debt issue was resolved
Never mind a BB poster, it also seems to be the view of the ex 29.8% shareholder and billionaire businessman. Whether he believes it enough to go down the legal route is another matter
How revealing. Does you username refer to mistakes made at the altar?
So the view (from P&SS) is that something illegal happened here, but no one is quite sure what, but adamant that it was illegal. Is that right? So adamant they are correct in their view that something illegal happened, that they are waiting for someone else (MA) to take the case. Is that correct? ................Are you both married? Do you talk to your wives about the Deb losses and how you hope they will be re-couped or is that sort of reality too far away from you both to even consider, if we cant be honest with ourselves how can we be honest with anyone else!
Plenty more to come, and it's not the first time either: https://youtu.be/RZ2oXzrnti4
I read today that Select is now entering talks on a second CVA after rejecting the first one. Meanwhile Philip Green is involved in a widespread CVA attempt.
I cannot understand why these other companies which are all indebted, just like Mothercare and Carpetright were beforehand, manage to go through into a CVA, yet DEB which also is now in CVA land is in administration instead of just CVA state? Why was there such haste to put the company into administration instead?
That is what MA needs to sort out, not only for us but for him as well. It is a disgrace what has happened here and there must be many shareholders up in arms at this.
MA has until 6th June to properly challenge things so I guess we must all wait in the meantime, but he does need to take the proverbial bull by the horns on this.
Ultimately does it mean anything for shareholders who lost everything?
, what then? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/19/mike-ashley-seeks-support-for-legal-challenge-to-debenhams-rescue
HoF didn't last long after it's CVA was challenged. If liquidation does follow, what does this say about the decision to put the company into administration vs accepting MAs offer?
Thought so
How are all the legal cases going? Has anyone employed a solicitor at this point?
"Was any attempt made to raise cash from shareholders before the NAV dropped below zero? " Yes, but MA didn't agree to the terms.
"Why were constant offers by MA to inject cash into the business continually rejected in favour of creditors money? " That is up to the creditors to decide. If they didn't like MA's offer, then they didn't have to take it.
"Were loan covenants unreasonably favourable to creditors and designed to deliberately to hinder any shareholder raising of funds?" Potentially, but the alternative (when the covenants were negotiated) was probably that this whole thing happened much sooner because financing would not have been available to the Company without such protective covenants. Maybe a rights issue could've helped, but I think we'd also be at a minimal value for shareholders now. Would've been worse asking them to put in more money 1-2 years ago and for that money to become worth significantly less.
"All good questions for our learned friends to consider, and none of which anyone not in possession of all the facts is able to answer, and that includes you daniel.f" True, but I do have quite a lot of the facts and a full understanding of why this happened the way it did and why it was not illegal or fraudulent.
Hi everyone. I am new to this thread.
Has anyone who traded debenhams shares on the 8th of april received his money?
My trades won't settle because the settlment date fell on the same day with the delisting. Will i eventually receive money or will i be treated same as shareholders? Many thanks
Was any attempt made to raise cash from shareholders before the NAV dropped below zero? Why were constant offers by MA to inject cash into the business continually rejected in favour of creditors money? Were loan covenants unreasonably favourable to creditors and designed to deliberately to hinder any shareholder raising of funds? All good questions for our learned friends to consider, and none of which anyone not in possession of all the facts is able to answer, and that includes you daniel.f
" How many times does this have to be explained?"
Oh at least a few more times between now and when this latest hot air blows over and comes to nothing.
Not strange at all – for the (probably not) last time, the BoD didn't really have a say as the lenders were in charge. How many times does this have to be explained?
thanks for the link 'SILVER'
i can see this getting very nasty indeed and a lot of PI
getting caught up in the game..
i was watching ZAK on VOX today and he was talking about this breaking news
story also .. he said that it's strange DEB BOD would rather go into administration
and close 50 stores putting lots of PI out of work than to let MA be there CEO
what are they hiding???
STRANGE INDEED...
I believe MA has to lodge papers by 6th June on this.
Really he needs to get the support of other large shareholders on side, but operating as he has previously does not necessarily enamour him to them. Still, if there is even a small chance of managing to reverse the administration, it will have to be pursued, especially as he was willing to keep all the branches running.
From yesterday's CityAM article:
"The sportswear group is set to challenge two company voluntary arrangements (CVA) that could lead to the closure of 50 the chain’s 166 stores, with rent cuts expected on dozens more.
A source close to Sports Direct said the company is currently in talks with a number of third parties, including landlords, about a possible joint legal challenge.
“The CVA votes, with one receiving 95 per cent support and 97 per cent for the other, bear more resemblance to the presidential elections in North Korea than they do to a fair, open and honest process,” the source said.
It came as Ashley’s retail group issued a statement outlining “serious issues” with the department store chain’s CVA process.
Sports Direct criticised the turnaround plan and slammed a sale process run by Debenhams's owners, a consortium of the retailer’s lenders led by US hedge funds.
“This was a highly unusual sales process given the incredibly short and unrealistic timescales for a group and matter of this size and complexity, and was closed only hours before the CVA votes themselves,” the firm said.
Sports Direct also raised concerns about the department store’s plan to close its main distribution centre, leaving it with only one remaining distribution centre for its 100 stores.
“With an unprecedented turnout, the CVA proposals had overwhelming support from landlords,” a spokesperson for Debenhams said.
“Landlords voted heavily in favour - well above the 75 per cent majority required - and we reject any suggestion that the process was not run properly.”
A spokesperson for FTI, Debenhams’s administrator, said: “We are entirely satisfied that the sale process was robust and that the timetable was reasonable.”
The dispute is the latest twist in a long-running war of words between Mike Ashley and Debenhams.
The department store rejected a £200m takeover offer by Sports Direct, which was contingent on Ashley taking over as chief executive."
good find KNIGELK the story broke 6.15pm this evening
goes to show there is still hope for us shareholders
well done MA don't give up and let them robbers run off with £150mill of your hard
earn't money
MA will have a much easier task in getting retribution for shareholders if the SC make a judgement in our favour before the CVA deadline
Typical thug is playing here a victim card,
Can't read the full article but SPD believe the votes in favour were "unusually high" and a joint challenge with other parties including landlords might start against the CVA...
I did have a feeling MA would not let this go without a fight... he has a lot to gain and probably not much to lose (ex court costs) taking the legal route..
Telegraph online: Breaking news - Sports Direct considers legal action against Debenhams restructuring .. i
Well known band of thugs go disperse or low profile after major robbery, same with Mike A & Board right now.
National Scandal- They brought Deb one step closer to liquidation including MA & BOD, that is national scandal.
Small investors can go into litigation after MA buys Debs from lenders, probably with int next few months. That will give firm footing to court case, and is the value valley.
Just my opinion above, but lawyers can give expert opinion. i will try to contact other major shareholders