Member Info for devonplay

"I am surprised that there are no reports on them anywhere in the press."
Year ended 31 March 2019
Group turnover from continuing operations (£m) 11.7
It's an SME really, small business up to £25m of thought of in that way.
I've owned bigger businesses. What amazes me it they've bothered to keep it public given the dominant shareholder has also provided the debt, so I guess they won't want to be diluted any time soon.
It could be a nice little cash cow, in private hands. Why don't save themselves the bother and cost of being listed?
The LSE allows a listing if turnover is over £700,000, but most are £50,000,000. Perhaps they don't want to delist because they do expect to get back to £50m t/o any time soon?
No one get in the press because their SME reports. They usually just organise a nice dinner for the Directors and partners.

Feels like it's going to hold up. Overall, no great shocks.

These look outstanding value to me, but I would say that as I recently bought some.

"its unlikely shareholders will see any return for many years."

Agree. It's a complicted deep value play that could take years. You can see that from it's major investor. They specialise in difficult troubled companies. It's only deep value if they pull it off, otherwise it's place is in a speculative basket of holding where you expect a very high attrition rate.

DEBENHAMS GROUP

Outcome of Challenge to CVA



Debenhams notes that the judgment in court this morning has affirmed that its CVA proposal continues to be effective. The challenge to our CVA was rejected on four of the five grounds of challenge, and the remaining ground has been addressed by the deletion of a technical provision of the CVA relating to landlord forfeiture.



Stefaan Vansteenkiste, Debenhams' CEO, commented:

"We are delighted that the court has today confirmed that our CVA is effective and will continue to be implemented as planned. We note that the only aspect that the judge required to be adjusted was a technical provision of the CVA relating to landlord forfeiture provisions.



"Our proposals had unprecedented levels of support from our landlords and today's outcome is good news for our 25,000 employees, our pensioners and suppliers. We retain the support of our lenders, and everyone at Debenhams can continue to focus on trading ahead of the important Christmas period."

DEBENHAMS GROUP

Outcome of Challenge to CVA

Debenhams notes that the judgment in court this morning has affirmed that its CVA proposal continues to be effective. The challenge to our CVA was rejected on four of the five grounds of challenge, and the remaining ground has been addressed by the deletion of a technical provision of the CVA relating to landlord forfeiture.

https://www.investegate.co.uk/debenhams-plc--irsh-/rns/outcome-of-challenge-to-cva/201909191109009745M/

Stefaan Vansteenkiste, Debenhams' CEO, commented:

"We are delighted that the court has today confirmed that our CVA is effective and will continue to be implemented as planned. We note that the only aspect that the judge required to be adjusted was a technical provision of the CVA relating to landlord forfeiture provisions.



"Our proposals had unprecedented levels of support from our landlords and today's outcome is good news for our 25,000 employees, our pensioners and suppliers. We retain the support of our lenders, and everyone at Debenhams can continue to focus on trading ahead of the important Christmas period."

"Not sure if MA is contesting this as part of his more general application."
No it's just the CVA as far as I understand it, that happened post Administration and after the business was sold to Celine.
" they are merely following orders in conducting the administration."
They don't follow orders. They are there to liquidate the business, Debenhams PLC, Administrators aren't like a sub contractor. They are Court appointed. Creditors get to choose which firm, but the condition has to be granted by a court. The court can be petitioned by either Directors or Creditors.
"It all comes down to how the court judge MA's appeal."
It's only against the CVA as far as I understand it. If the court finds against Debenhams (Celine) they'll challenge it or apply for Administration of the new business. It's still very likely that even if Debenhams fails to defend the CVA the liquidation of Debenhams PLC will proceed. That's unless there's a seperate court case.I doubt that will happen, as it would be cheaper, and easier, for SPD to pick up the business in administration.
What happens is anyone guess, very few ever get turned over.
"No news coming through on that"
It should come up here when it does: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/?filter_type=judgment&search=&tax-single-judgment-jurisdiction=-1&tax-single-court=-1&date-range-after=&date-range-before=

" Though not sure why their rating is junk with such a high CET1."
Because of the rating that's applied to them. They are high yield bonds (junk).

https://www.fticonsulting-emea.com/~/media/Files/emea--files/creditors-portal/cip-emea-public/debenhams-plc/sealed-court-order-in-respect-of-fee-application-16-september-2019.pdf

2. In accordance with 98(2)(c) of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, Chad Griffin, Simon Kirkhope and Andrew Johnson be discharged from liability pursuant to paragraph 98(1) of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in respect of any act or omission in their individual capacity as administrators of Debenhams, such order to take effect from the date falling 56 days after the date on which the final progress report is notified to creditors of Debenhams (or such other date as the Court thinks fit), save in respect of claims notified to the Joint Administrators of Debenhams before that date.

"Devonplay, Intu will be making a prepayment on this bond soon due to sale of Derby. So makes a safe bet."
Maybe, it's reasonable punt anyway. Thing is the whole business feels like it would be better off being private. I can't see any equity raise being big enough (from the shareholders)...so the question is, if it end up in private hands who's hands will it be? Private Equity or Debt Holders. Either way, I think the 5 year plan is sensible enough, if not a bit dull. I think the debt is worth a go.

4.3%, YTM 7.3%
Who knows.

89%

Hi everyone, I just bought some of Intu's Intu (SGS) Finance PLC 3.875 per cent. Notes due 2028.
I like the company, happy to take a punt on the 5 year recovery plan, but still wanted some income.
Good luck with you investment.

Hi every one, just bought some of the above, so will be watching the chat here. Have yest checked out to see if ENQ1 has it's onw board, but I guess if it does it'll be very quiet. Good luck with your investment.

Just for clarity, and they way I understand it, if the court case is lost by Debenhams the papers are reporting that it will go into administraion. That's not the same administration as your shareholdings are caught up in, but would effect the shareholders of Celine.
The bond holders of Debenhams would still be there, but they would become creditors of the Celine owned Debenhams. Any sale of assets would be to satisfy the creditors of Celine. Not Debenhams PLC.
The bondholders have already been paid to amend the terms of the bonds ( a previous Consent Solicitation) to reflect the change of ownership of the Debenhams buisness to Celine.
As I say, that's the way I understand it.

"I have one question for you if and that is a big Deb managed to become profitable and decides to relist again will we as ex-sh get anything at all?"
No, your shareholding is in Debenhams PLC, not the new vehicle (Celine). I posted a link earlier from the Administrators notifiying of an upcoming court case, 16 September, asking the court to approves their fees and release them from their responsibilities after the final report to creditors. I would imagine at that point, the final report, they would apply to have a "strike off", in all practical terms that means shares of the the once listed company would be cancelled and disappear. The actual business (Debenhams) is now owned by Celine. If it was relisted at some time in the future those shares would be initially owned by the shareholders of Celine. Some of the owners of Debenhams bonds. Shareholders aren't creditors, so they haven't been included in the creditor vehicle (Celine). Neither have all creditors. That's the way I understand it anyway.

"Deb latest action is simply giving hints to the court that they did something dodgy through the pre-pack process. Correct me if I’m wrong always happy to hear your view"
Not sure how you come to that conclusion. I would think it suggests the opposite, that the business won't stand another period of administration. We can only speculate, but that would be my reading and the message I think it would send. By design or not. The over arching objective of compaines coming out of administraion is to survive as ongoing enterprise and attempt to satisfy creditors. In this case, both the unsecured lenders (bond holders) and the majority of the landland lords and creditors were protected (to differing degrees). It's the "differing degrees" that appears to be the basis of CPC arguement (and issue). More debt, in my opion, re-inforces the arguement for the need for the CVA and strenghtens Debehams position. If it does go back into administraion I can only see one party benefiting and I don't think that will be the employees, lenders or present or past shareholders.

" super senior debt"
Ranks ahead of the bond holders and well ahead of the shareholders. So, if the cout case is successful for SPD, and the company is pushed back into administration, SSP are top of the pile for any distribution. Obviously behind HMRC etc. These lender must at least be confident that the business, as it exist today, is a going concern. That might imply the court case, in their opinion, is going to find in favour of Debenhams. I bet it's not cheap debt for the obvious reason....

Another £50,000,000 of Super Senior Debt.

September 6, 2019

DEBENHAMS RETAIL LIMITED

Required Consents received in Consent Solicitation

Debenhams Retail Limited ("DRL") hereby announces that the consent solicitation it announced on September 3, 2019 (the "Consent Solicitation") with respect to the £225,000,000 5.25% Senior Notes due 2021, of which £200,000,000 remains outstanding (ISIN: XS1081972850; Common Code: 108197285) (the "Notes") issued by Debenhams plc (in administration) (the "Company") has been successful.

As a result, DRL has obtained the required consents necessary to amend certain provisions of the trust deed dated July 2, 2014 between the Company, the Subsidiary Guarantors named therein and Citicorp Trustee Company Limited, as amended, supplemented, waived or otherwise modified from time to time prior to this Consent Solicitation (the "Trust Deed") and, subject to receiving consent of the other parties thereto in due course, to amend certain provisions of the intercreditor agreement dated March 29, 2019 between the Company, Lucid Trustee Services Limited (the "Trustee"), GLAS Trust Corporation Limited (the "Security Agent") and various creditors of the Company named therein, as amended, supplemented, waived or otherwise modified from time to time (the "Intercreditor Agreement") as set forth in the consent solicitation statement dated September 3, 2019 (the "Consent Solicitation Statement").

Capitalized terms used in this notice and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings given to them in the Consent Solicitation Statement.

The Proposed Amendments were sought to (i) permit the drawing of a further £50 million of secured indebtedness by a member of the Group and to allow some of its indebtedness to incur interest that capitalizes and (ii) elevate some or all of the Secured Hedging Liabilities to be paid on a super senior basis, prior to and senior to the liabilities owed to the New Money Facility Agreement lenders, agents and arranger and to the liabilities owed to certain agents including the Security Agent and the Trustee.

The adoption of the Proposed Amendments required the consents of Holders of at least a majority in aggregate principal amount of the then outstanding Notes voting as a single class. A majority of Holders voting as a single class have submitted their consents prior to the Expiration Time. As a result, the Proposed Amendments, to be implemented by the execution of the Fifth Supplemental Trust Deed and the Second Supplemental Intercreditor Agreement, will bind all Holders of the Notes, including those that did not deliver their consent.

Consent given:
https://www.investegate.co.uk/debenhams-plc--irsh-/rns/required-consents-received/201909061301335418L/