Member Info for CC2015

So, if you are in the defined contribution scheme they are your contributions regardless of what happens to IRV in the next 50 years. the contributions are paid to the pension provider and therefore the risk is that Aviva or whoever goes bust not IRV going bust.

If you can be bothered to read the accounts for 2018 (which it's clear 95% of the posters on this Board haven't based on much of what I read on here) here are the facts for the defined benefit pension scheme. The scheme has assets of £938m and liabilities of £845m. i.e. 11% more than it needs. Therefore the scheme is very well funded and has enough assets that even if IRV went bust tomorrow it can pay the pensions for the next 50 or so years (depending on bond rates of course).

Some of you might like to note that the new owners will of course plunder this over the next 5 years as soon as they are able, thereby further enhancing the returns on their loans and new shares!

Sorry to all shareholders. So, the next question is whether Coltrane will take legal action against the pre-pack

I'm surprised at how many votes against. What a mess. Don't trust anyone who votes for Trump

well true or not the city am article certainly moved the share price

And so the numbers. Retail investors hold 30% but most of them won't vote.

So, Coltrane own 25.1% based on the enlarged share capital, which leaves 44.9% in other "institutional holders".

It is though Coltrane have now lost support of Farringdon.

I'm guessing the vote will go through and with those converted warrants more or less assuring the situation.

With a couple of hours to go, I wanted to write that I hope the deal goes through, rather than pre-pack. I'm still not sure what Coltrane are playing at, other than bluffing. I'm sure they are happy to burn their shares but I'm not sure why. If it were me I'd be selling to crystallise some tax losses to set against my gains in their situation but there again I wasn't able to research them in any depth as their website is almost non-existent. Maybe they don't have any tax gains to set off!

This hasn't been a great trade for Coltrane and I'm astonished at the way they have handled this. I'm not sure they ever understood at any stage just how bad the financial situation was or indeed is now. Certainly I wouldn't want my money invested with them after watching this.

Regrettably I see many more years of pain for IRV and it's staff. It's reputation is damaged. At least the company will be saved though and the employees have continuity of work. Over time they may choose to stay or leave but at least they can do that in their own time. The pension fund is also fully funded albeit it's been stripped back to CPI vs RPI.

I'm not sure what the share price is doing today going up. Reading around it seems some think that if the vote is positive that immediately means the shares are worth 15.3p as that's the offer price. I don't follow this logic at all but each to their own. Shares are worth what people think they are worth, not necessarily anything to do with true value based on future profits.

Fate - well done on your post. It makes alot of sense given the context.

I would imagine that in the end Coltrane and the lenders will do a deal between 7.5 and 10. Whether the lenders own 95,92.5 or 90 will actually make little difference to them in the end. Eventually in 5-10 years time the company may be worth say £500m (and that's pushing it imho - more likely half that). thus they are arguing over £10m. It's peanuts really in the scheme of things.

I agree - what a mess. The way it's falling we could see something well below 10p.

I only hope that Friday concludes the situation. Either it's voted through or pre-pack. Employees jobs will be safe.

Any further messing around by the two parties could put that at risk.

Share price really struggling now.

Wonder how many stops are at 10p?

There is now no time Feileb. You are voting on the 5% deal. That's the decision you have to make.

If the lenders were serious about the 7.5% they would have offered it by now as all the votes for those using nominee accounts have to be in mostly by close of business tonight. The cut-off have passed for some already.

If it's true IRV run out of money this week then the Directors have to put it in receivership (or-prepack) if the vote doesn't go through. Otherwise they would be knowingly let it trading insolvent which is an offence.

Looks like buyers dwindling and sellers finding no-one to sell into.

Building magazine running a couple of articles that Council close to terminating contract at Derby and London Premier Inn delayed by months.

At the end of the day it won't matter what deal is done if they company can't manage these projects professionally

I believe you are right Meta in that cash will not settle. There was a guy on the CLLN thread who got caught by this and spent endless time persuing his broker who just kept coming back with the settlement period.

Having said that I suspect most of the larger retail brokers did settle even though they were not obliged to as there wasn't an uproar on this or any other BB. I would guess they had both buys and sells and just took the difference on the chin (or perhaps they have some long standing deal with their prime broker)

https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/companies/contractors/interserve/interserve-investor-could-buy-firm-out-of-insolvency/10040937.article

Coltrane appear to be thrashing around and have completely lost the plot if you ask me. I'm happy for someone to play devils advocate with me but I don't think they've got a scooby. The only way Coltrane could do this is if it refinanced nearly £1b of debt at around 5% and who is going to lend them that sort of money to buy IRV.

Coltrane seem to be full of bluster and words but does anyone seriously think they are going to spend hundreds of millions on something where they currently have a shareholding worth £5m?

It is expected that admission will become effective on 13 March 2019."

I'm not sure. It says shares will be issued from time to time. I'm not clear if admission means admission of the block listing facility.

However, your point is valid. Why would the lenders not want to convert the warrants so they can vote the shares. The bigger puzzle is that they aren't converting all of them. (suggesting not all the banks are in alignment?)

The 13.6m votes aren't yet votes. The shares have not yet been issued. Only the ability to issue them.
Whether the warrants are going to be taken up this week remains to be seen or whether IRV are just putting everything straight before the vote is unknown.

it's a business model folks. If you trade through one of the larger "more professional brokers" who charge you £10-12 a trade they don't charge for voting or for example letters of representation for attending AGM's.

If you trade through a smaller broker charging £5 a trade they have to make the difference up somewhere else. Voting fees, fees for attending AGM's, even fees I've heard for taking part in open offers and rights issues, little to no interest on your un-invested capital.

The thing about playing chicken is that usually however good you are at bluffing you cave at the end.

And so, Bondholders offer 2.5%, bondholders cave, bondholders offer 5%, bondholders thinking about caving, bondholders thinking about offering 7.5%.

Tells you something about who's bluffing most.

IRV runs out of money by Friday, technically insolvent. There are different bondholders involved with different objectives.

I suspect it's going to get more messy. The Board are are conducting all their comms through interviews and quotes with the newspapers. Not an RNS in sight. I'm amazed.

Presumably means they have had feedback vote will go against them and pre-pack isn't as attractive as they make out (probably means IRV banned from certain supplier lists?)

hxxps://news.sky.com/story/interserve-lenders-in-talks-about-last-ditch-deal-sweetener-11662097

But yet again the bondholders are trying to be too greedy. If they ran with 10% I'm sure it would get through for sure. Will 7.5% be enough. Who knows

Additional view.

if the bondholders came up with £150m, I think this would stabilise the supply chain, suppliers would be willing to work for them and it would not actually be needed. Further, I suspect the actual level of bank borrowing would be less under this scenario than the £75m scenario after a couple of months once suppliers have proof they are getting paid on time.

The £75m is cutting it too fine.