Member Info for BillTucker89

So according to the telegraph IRV BOD are considering a pre pack deal to get the transaction through. Great times ahead bonuses well deserved.

You might be right meta, but they will call it a day and get what? We all know IRV has a lot of goodwill with no assets, so what exactly can they sell to get their money.

It’s not over just yet, let’s see what Coltrane have up their sleeve. I’m sure the lenders must be reconsidering their deal already with their advisors, and I have no doubt other big players in this share have already had discussions with Coltrane already. I would be surprised if the BOD get this through without shareholder backing. If what Feilb says is correct about the earnings being 182m this year, then they are only indebted 4.5 their earnings, and is enough to service debt. Fully support whatever Coltrane propose as it can’t be worded than this.

Meta- the lenders should take the pain as they are being greedy. It is their greed that bought IRV in this situation with a crippling interest rate. Secondly they knew full well IRV will struggle with the rate and it would come to this. Thirdly the govt stuck their nose in and made sure IRV kept RMD, which would have been a favourable deal for all parties. That would have strengthened the balance sheet by 350m, but it looks like they might get it after all this anyway down the road. The BOD will get their investment back as they will have negotiated the equivalent equity in the new shares so they haven’t lost either. Oh and btw they will get 125% bonus this year from the New shareholders for doubling their money overnight. How has this been for investors???

PigleaNdpoo- the point about the CFO going to BAE systems as a CFO is wrong. Tim Haywood bought his own business ( google Aston Vineyard) and retired as a CFO(for now).

The chap who went to BAE systems was actually the FD of IRV’s support services business as opposed to the group CFO.

Feilb- I have been saying this all along, but those who apparently “know better” keep saying the deal is fair and was always on the cards. As you have demonstrated the deal in question gets them all of their money back, and the remaining “debt” is all profit which will double their money. Those who bought the debt at half price have more than tripled their money, and in the meantime they have a healthy of which they will bleed the profits of many years to come.
Now we can see why Coltrane are sticking up for shareholders, as all the speculation to date was clearly saying lenders would take some of the pain but clearly not. Let’s not forget the govt own 62% of RBS so they too will profit from this deal hence they pushed for this. I know what my vote will be if I’m given the chance.

Pigleandtoe- you know that won’t hapen, they will get a nice package that pays their salary for the next year whilst shareholders and employees take the pain. We have already seen this with Ringrose and Haywood, as well as Howson at Carillion.

Their RNS have been either non existant or full of lies. Only 12 months ago they said they were restoring shareholder value, which clearly they have except its for the new incoming shareholders rather than current ones. Still have no idea how DW has Coltrane’s support as surely she had been spearheading this deal?

Meta’s not that bad Feilb lol.

Meta yes but they only took 4m shares so far so along way to hit 20%. Though if you look at an RNS in January, there is a block listing for 14m shares for warrants which have not been put on the market. I’m guessing no equity can be issued until all this is sorted, so they are probably kicking themselves in the foot.

Good night and good luck all.

To add the article did mention they will be speaking to other investors too, so would be interesting who teams up with them.

Feilb- now that would be nice to see lol. We can all have a IRV LSE group holiday somewhere in the Bahamas or Las Vegas.

But back to your point yes it would be ideal to purchase the addition 24% in shares, but equally they can just get fellow hedge funds like Farringdon (hold 8%) to back them up. If the other IIs see their sense in their plan, then I don’t think they will hesitate to back the plan. After all everyone is looking after their own investment.

I agree shareholders weren’t thought of as a priority in this refinancing which quite frustrating, hence I Wish Coltrane all the best in getting IRV and lenders to revisit.

Feilb but then what happens when lenders get RMD as you suggest? They get RMD and retain their 90% of support services and construction whose EBITA will be far lower when RMD is gone, hence will result in a seeker so?

meta- this is why Coltrane want to replace the CFO amongst others as our simply there does not appear to a plausible explanation about where all this money is going. Once they have their own people on there along with DW who they support, they will be a closer watch on what exactly is going on behind the doors. This BOD have demonstrated that they simply cannot he interested to run the company on their own, or indeed act in shareholder interests. To be honest I have no idea why they need 75m since they would have received signinificant insurance receipts in January/December.

What other reason can you think of that would force Coltrane to nominate it’s own directors??

Meta- I’m sure the lenders will want to avoid a legal battle too as that’s the last thing they need. Maybe they will play ball.

Feilb it could work in my view. Putting a rights issue aside, there are further disposal that are yet to be announced that will push debt down further. If you’re left with 515m net debt there are disposals on the cards just in the Middle East which would net around 65m. That leaves 450m to play with which can slowly be reduced overtime as they get EFW milestone payments and insurance receipts. You also then save 24m (assuming rate of 10%)a year on intersest charged which can be used to pay off capital, alone will pay off 50m in 2 years time.

I didn’t think Coltrane will kick up such a big fuss for the sake of 7.5% which they will not own by themselves anyway.

Meta- your post makes sense, the debt is getting beyond belief but it still doesn’t warrant the actions the BOD have taken. They could have easily agreed to turn 240m into equity for lenders, with the rest rest being being stumped up via RI when the share hits a reasonable price. This would have put bod, shareholders, lenders and suppliers at ease and shareholders would have accepted say a 50-60% dilution. The current deal doesn’t look like a rescue deal, but as a sweet deal and favourable for the lenders, so Coltrane are right to be angry.
Only question now is will Coltrane succeed and will other shareholders back them?

Feilb- IMO a better deal would be 240m debt for 50% of the company. There is no need to reduce the debt so radically as stated by Coltrane. This will take the current SP to around 50p.

Maybe Coltrane will not offer the £75m loan at low interest?

Thanks pbody, but with the latest developments what ate the chances this will go through. I'm sure Coltrane will put a counter offer on the table since they are already nursing heavy losses, so the banks may have to reconsider since they have 800m to loose, and as we know IRV had no tangible assets. I know the BOD said they would look at other plans to get this through, but Coltrane will put some sort of block on it.

Pbody- or perhaps block the deal if it's too unfavourable.? We will never know.

Pbody thats Goldman Sachs not Coltrane, though they are lending securities. Are you suggesting they are holding for Coltrane which ties up with their 27% holding as opposed to the 17% held directly.

Meta- agree but as the article below says they will have fo prove the banks are taking the biscuit, and that IRV are not in immediate danger going bust. Not sure how easy or difficult this will be, but I'm sure they've been over the books and can see a way out even perhsps providing a loan. They do own 27% of the equity so they can make a big difference to the vote. Maybe Farringdon will jump on the band wagon in which case thats 35%.

Also what do people think about the partabout looking at alternative plans should shareholders not approve?