Member Info for BlindPanic

You're being offered zero so 27 times that is...........? How much will you sell me your shares for this sounds like a dead cert! Hang on though I suppose Bazzer will want paying?

I'm curious as to why you stayed in after the "little or no value" statement was made and also why peeps kept buying in. Isn't it obvious where this was going to end? The same fate has befallen all the European peers. There is a big clue when the debt is trading at 30% of face value (as it was over two years ago) and being bought by distressed vulture funds. That implies clearly a valuation a long way from the equity. As for the directors duties I believe they do not have to consider the shareholders if their advice is that the company is categorically insolvent. Do you REALLY believe there was ever a chance of repaying the debt? If not then what's the complaint as the company was insolvent. If you do then more horlicks and a padded cell for you ;)

Piler - I'm very interested in some of the statements being bandied around and which I've never seen supported with any reasonable explanation. "The BOD, IN MY HONEST OPINION, have misled, displayed incompetence, been steered by conflicts of interest and might even have been in cahoots with lenders in order to engineer the current situation with a view to shafting shareholders." Misled?- how? The BoD flagged clearly that they were embarking on a blue sky strategy because the core business was in terminal decline. Stating that they were akin to a bank would only be taken literally by a simpleton. It seems that shareholders don't feel any responsibility to do their own research. If they had they would have seen this coming. There may have been enough cash generated to service debt this year but given the declining earnings this would not be the case in the future. Incompetent - I'd definitely agree. Who really thought this company could compete with Google, Facebook, group on, etc? The BoD should have embarked on a cash conservation strategy years ago and squeezed out as much as they could for the stakeholders - wouldn't have changed the position for shah orders though as they have been screwed for years. Conflicts of interest - once it became clear the company was insolvent then the BoDs primary duty switched to the creditors. That's not a conflict of interest and to have ignored that would have left them liable to the creditors and on the hook for a wrongful trading case. This company has been economically owned by the creditors for years. They have lost far more than the shareholders in the last five years and frankly as an unwilling bank shareholder (taxpayer) I think they should have acted sooner. Those who chose to ignore reality and now seek to try some kind of wild goose chase puzzle me. Plenty of people on here like to say "do your own research" but in this case not enough seemed to have done. Would love to hear some substance behind these claims. Cheers

A business claiming to be a bank but really being insolvent? Perish the thought and throw them in jail !

I think it is pretty clear that the company has been insolvent for a significant period of time and therefore the directors duties switch to being directed at protecting the interests of the creditors. At the point of insolvency the shareholders interests are no longer relevant as, by its very definition they have no value to protect. In situations such as that it is required that the directors work with the creditors to find ways to protect their value. That simply cannot be described as colluding. The fact that this company has been insolvent for years should have been apparent to shareholders - it certainly was to lenders which is why they were selling their debt at a fraction of its value. In that sense those who chose to stay in were speculating on a very risky proposition and caveat emptor probably does apply. I'd be truly interested if this board (advised by experienced and expensive professionals poring over every word) would have made truly misleading statements. If you can stick it to Goldmans then no one will be unhappy about that but I strongly believe that you are wasting your time and money. Just hope your lawyer is working on a no win no fee basis!

Piler - if you're going after Goldman then you'll have plenty wishing you well. I know the advisory team at Goldman and also their Special Situations Group (in house distressed debt fund) and know there is no link between the two. One sits in the Investment Banking Division and one in Fixed Income. They are fairly adept at Chinese walls but good luck all the same. Far more chance of getting a settlement out of them than of overturning the lender take over IMHO.

I'm really interested in what people think the intrinsic value of this business is. I understand that shareholders are angry at the incompetence of the board but I think that is really a smokescreen hiding the more fundamental issue of value. The lenders obviously believe that the value of the business is far below the face value of the debt and the debt trading prices certainly support this. With a traditional business that is in terminal decline and a bunch of blue sky ideas that are unproven and have a large competitor base of frankly much more savvy operators then it is hard to see value increasing from its current level significantly. Does anyone on here TRULY believe that the current value of the business is more than £2.3bn? I'm talking fundamental enterprise value on a debt free basis not some nonsense about their being market cap. Surely this is the key question that the courts would seek to have answered (as they did in cases like IMO car wash). So even if you could prove the board had been negligent how would you prove a loss? I have gone on record as saying I think that this challenge is doomed and that anyone who didn't see this coming shouldn't be speculating but I'm genuinely interested why there seems to be a significant number with a different point of view.

More delusional drivel. Expect better from a Yorkshireman!

No - just the "silly trolls" with their "inane offerings" wondering why this is different to all the other situations where lenders have been forced to protect their interests. Still waiting for an answer on that :)

Guardians of the truth and protectors of the vulnerable.

Burnie you don't need to be a financial genius to have avoided this car crash. Basic analysis of the market, peers, financial position and strategy would have pointed anyone who thinks they are qualified to invest money to the obvious conclusion. The fact is that some people were too stupid to do the basics and now cry boo hoo because its not fair. This isn't the first time this has happened and it won't be the last. It mostly happens in the PE world where over leveraged LBOs end up being owned by their banks (how do you think RBS has become a major PE firm by accident) the difference is with the PE guys they mostly take it like men and move on (apart from Guy Hands!). The thing that really winds me up is the "false hopers" on this and the III board encouraging people to join a crusade that is doomed to failure. It is clear that there are some very inexperienced and vulnerable people on these boards and they are being exploited (at the very least emotionally). The BoD might have been incompetent but they did nothing legally wrong here. The shareholders need to accept their fate and try harder next time.

But you're not just stating facts - you're stating opinions and you have no idea what was looked at and dismissed as unrealistic. "Would have been easy to raise another 800M"? Are you deluded? The business isn't worth that much so you think shareholders would have put £800m of new equity in to pay down debt and sit behind £1.5bn of debt. Soros hasn't paid anything like £800m for this "institution". You know what makes me laugh is shareholders who don't understand the role of equity is to bear the first losses and then cry "it's not fair" when the fairly obvious circumstances move against them. Here's a simple lesson: 1. The business is worth far less than its debts (about 75% less at least) 2. There is no prospect of the value of the business recovering above the level of the debts 3. Any further reduction in value impacts the debtholders and no one else 4. Given 3. above the debt holders (not surprisingly) want to be in control of their own destiny and not need to worry about massively out of the money shareholders 5. The contractual arrangements and legal framework in the UK gives creditors the ability to take steps to protect their interests where they are so obviously the only interests at risk 6. Sensible and pragmatic shareholders accept they took a risk and move on 7. Stupid and inexperienced shareholders cry like babies and/or form an action group. I'm glad you haven't lost money on this but with your quality of analysis I can only hope you're not responsible for anyone else's money. Given the niaivety I've seen on boards like this people like you are dangerous.

With analysis like that you deserve to lose your money.

Why? So he can waste more money?

Nothing. They don't need your approval so they won't offer you anything. Sorry.

Ha ha! I actually think he believes he's found the recipe for alchemy, or at least how to out manouvre Google, et al. The one that really shafted the shareholders is Wrigley IMHO. Sad thing is they/you bought his bull**** and gave him £650m when the thing was already into its death spiral. Now that's what I call a salesman!

From memory the 1p offered on Mouchel was a fraction of the share price at the time and would have cost them about £1.5m so arguably not much different to the alternative. Putting this through admin won't cost £20m and maybe, just maybe they figured that they would go to the trouble of a vote and get the same outcome? They may have been able to service interest on debt for a short period (although not clear and the probably couldn't repay the unextended debt) but anyway you would have to be a madman to think that this business EVER had a prospect of repaying that debt. The BOD would have been very focussed on that and the risk that they would be hauled up on a wrongful trading charge if it was arguable (and it surely is) that the company is insolvent now. This isn't the first time this has happened and it won't be the last. Anyone who continued to back this share with the writing on the wall for the last few years only has themselves to blame. Every other major directories business across Europe has been through some form of restructuring and most have ended up owned by their lenders. There is a clue there!

Why does anyone thinkthis situation s any different to that of, say, Mouchel which went through a similar process this time last year - Board proposed a capital restructuring (and offered s/hs 1p) which s/hs rejected and board implemented anyway through a pre-pack admin. Given the debt pile and the value of thebusiness I'm not sure why anyone thinks there could be ANY value to be argued in the shares and given the financial and legal advisors involved here does anyone really think they won't have done their homework. This is what happens when companies over borrow and see their value collapse. It is the role of equity to take the first losses and a the end of this the creditors will take their losses as this thing is never going to be worth more than the debt. This feels like throwing good money after bad with only the lawyers set to benefit!!

True. Andy Brough et al should learn where the job centre is at least!

Reading some of the messages below it appears that some just don't get the realities of this type of situation. When this company reported some appalling results (at the 11th hour and 59th minute) in November last year revealing that banks had put £16m of new debt facilities in (to get a clean audit sign off) it was time to get out. From that point onwards the banks were running the show. They brought Shearer and Rumbles in not, as some suggest, so they could be backed into a corner by them. Goldman Sachs embarked on the fruitless task of seeking new equity from new investors (which would have also wiped out existing shareholders) and the banks prepared their plans for this to be taken into bank ownership. Ever since that profit warning the writing was on the wall. Choosing to ignore this reality whilst hoping tht one of the previous bidders would re-appear with an offer was niaive. The final act of craziness took place last week. Faced with a certain outcome like lemmings a minority of shareholders prevented their brothers and sisters from recovering some meagre crumbs out of this debacle. Deluded thinking that a NO vote would prevent management from receiving their 5% (they. Ever could truly own 20%) share incentive showed the extent of the niaivety. Even worse was the belief that the banks would come back with another offer. I recommend that you learn some lessons from this and either get out sooner it where you can't don't sacrifice YOUR cash in the wild goose chase of "the right thing". This doesn't exist in finance. The banks have lost much more than the shareholders here and they are not allowed to how compassion. Other companies such as Hibu are going exactly this way except the offer to shareholders won't be 1p!!!!