Member Info for BlindPanic

Directors don’t need to subscribe for shares. The owners will change the board and provide a new MIP to the new management.

OMG. You really can’t help some people. I know all about the “possible” effects of a pre-pack. They are the same effects that were analysed on Mouchel. The lenders are already being over generous to shareholders. Some of you want a free ride.

The pre-pack admin had no impact on Mouchel. There is no equity value in this company. The lenders are offering something to save the costs of the admin. It won’t get any better. Coltrane are deluding themselves and other less informed shareholders.

This is a re run of Mouchel and will have the same outcome. Shareholders rejecting an offer left them with nothing.

I meant school boy error by Wiggers. Jesus what a bell end he is. Hope these clowns go to jail. Won't get money back for lenders or shareholders but some satisfaction for both. At the very least they will get banned as directors.

Sorry Khan - I rudely answered Jumeirah first. I'm not surprised Wigley and Pocock didn't attend are you? They had nothing to gain by getting into a stand up debate with HSG and no legal duty to do so. Can you substantiate the allegations about Wiggers buying debt? That would be really funny if you could and a great big schoolboy error on his part. I'm definitely not pro the BoD and am not really anti HSG per se - I guess I just don't really understand what they hope to achieve nor how anyone could have thought this could be avoided. Whether or not shareholders feel like they were properly informed I'd be very surprised if they could pin that on the BoD given who they were being advised by. To be honest given some of the lack of basic understanding around the legal and commercial situation here I'd be surprised if some shareholders got the message if it was in flashing lights in front of them. As for my own motives, we'll you'll just have to take my word for it that I'm just curious about what makes people take up arms (and throw good money after bad unless Dearing is working pro bono) chasing a lost cause.

Maaaaaaybe but of course the directors have no power to investigate now the administrators are in. Have you evidence that such an offer was ever tabled? It doesn't stack up for me since that would have represented a roughly 50% recovery on the debt (all proceeds would have gone to lenders) and meanwhile the debt was trading at about half that level. Therefore was there anything to announce? Presume there were riot police there or at least bodyguards for the Deloitte blokes!

But they haven't achieved anything?????? Would still like to know what any of them/you think the alternative was here. Just for academic purposes obviously!

No ranting from me Khan since I wasn't dumb enough to invest in this :) How do you know I would have moved on? I have an interest in how this kind of thing works in general and more knowledge on the topic than most so you will just after put up with me. In the last email I was actually trying to be helpful (as always!)

Excellent. Deloitte have been working with the BoD for two years so I'm sure they can help with some of the questions arising over that period. Their original scope was to undertake diligence on the business plan (the one with Pococks blue sky ideas). They are widely thought to have been very soft on that such that the lenders looked at replacing them last year. They almost certainly had some form of duty of care to the lenders. All that being said I think they will just stonewall you with info on the process and not much else. They are likely to explain some of the points I've been making on here about the business being insolvent and the directors duties in such a situation. I don't think you'll come away feeling any more informed and certainly no happier. Angry mobs generally get nowhere.

I'd be extremely doubtful that this EGM can go ahead. Who is going to pay for it? Given the company is in administration then the partners at Deloittes are responsible for any costs incurred and I'd seriously doubt if this was seen as a justifiable use of creditors funds. If I was a shareholder I'd demand proof that it will go along. Maybe call Deloitte in London and ask them?

Hello Piler - haven't been ignoring you but have been on a two day bender in Barcelona. What a place! Can't walk back to your hotel in the early hours without being offered oral sex for €5. Very disturbing. Anyway, I'm not sure about the requirement you refer to but assume you are right. Not sure who is going to take action and if anyone does what the punishment will be. Not severe enough in all likelihood. I think you need to give the administrators and ultimately the liquidator a clear message that you expect the allocations of wrongdoing to be properly and thoroughly investigated. I really do wish you well in sticking it to these cowboys.

Piler - stop being obtuse and state your case.

I didn't realise they'd broken the law. Are the police investigating? What did they do.....allegedly!

Jumeirah - the BoD were at risk of wrongful trading if they didn't do what they have done. These measures only provide redress in terms of the debts. Shares don't apply. I think you'll have to rely on the liquidator who would be appointed after the administration is concluded. He will investigate directors. Main problem is funding the liquidator. MOT by the way!!

Shaa - Doesn't it worry you that no one can answer the most basic of questions? It's a public forum. If you don't like it go to the private ones.

KNIGELK - the PLC is in admin. The administrators job is to realise the best value for the assets for the benefit of stakeholders in order of priority (creditors first). Shareholders lose whether it is a pre-pack or not because the company they have invested in is massively insolvent and the rights of creditors need to be protected in order of priority. Don't forget they have lost about £1.8bn. Lucando - this is not new and is enshrined in the Insolvency Act. You really should know these things before investing in a massively indebted company like Hibu.

Wazza - read the definition in the Insolvency Act. Either an excess of liabilities over assets or an inability to meet debts as they fall due. This fails on both since the assets (businesses) are worth less than 25% of the debts and there is no prospect of repaying the £2.3bn of debt. In these circumstances BoD has little choice.

Piler - it is in administration. The BoD are not in control any longer - the administrators are. They have some clear responsibilities but none of them include holding an EGM. They wouldn't be able to justify the cost for something that would serve no benefit to the creditors who's interests they are primarily concerned with. You see the thing you have all failed to grasp here is that when a company is insolvent which this one clearly is there are few, if any, rights left for shareholders.

I hadn't read the RNS when I last posted. The company you own shares in is in administration and the administrators are going to sell the assets with any value to a SPV owned by the lenders. There will be no EGM .....ever ......but there will be a creditors meeting and ultimately there will be a liquidator appointed who will have to investigate the actions of the BoD. That is your best bet for getting any answers. Would still love to know what you thought you might achieve though.