Member Info for devonplay

Actually, I dont think there's a 10% rule on the equity either.

"which I believe is 10% of the share price at the time of announcement."

Is that really the case, I thought it was 10% of the issued equity.

I may be wrong, I just seem to remember the recent placing of SXX was at a 30% discount.

Thanks, I'd missed the "after hours" bit.

Still no RNS, I was hoping there mignt be something this morning.

"Is anyone actually bringing a case"

No sign of any case.

If it's anything like Noel's claim against Lloyds I suggest it might be worth checking in sometime after 2030.....

"Silver - you are one dense piece of wood"

Harsh, but funny.

We are making some real progress here. Silver has accepted there are "new owners of the new company". And, there might not be any illegality "in the event of any finding of illegality".

That's progress.

The poor bond holders don't get any compensation, it's only the shareholders apparently, All creditors can go whistle for their money.

We even have a number, 5p, for the compensation. Just for the shareholders mind, and really wont be much help to any that bought and sold above that price and weren't on the register on "A" day! I'm sure they'd do the obvious and launch their own claim.

It appears for lenders, creditors, bond holders and past shareholders common law breaks down and they don't deserve compensation.

Spoons has also pointed out that "limited companies" provide protection for shareholders.

We know that last value the market placed on the business was 0, no one wanted to buy it in the Lazards porcess.

So, I guess the most logical thing for the new owners to do, after this imaginary court case, whould be to make use of those "Shareholders have limited liability" laws and before paying any compensation pheonix it through administration.

Afterall, as shareholders they reign supreme when it comes to not taking a hit.

I guess all that explains why it's a very, very, very rare occurence for administration to be unwound in the way Spoons describes.

Yes, i understand fully the concept of a limited liability company, but we are making some progress in you identifying who you think should be compensating you.

So we've gone from "the company", which might not exist for much longer, to the lenders.

So does not the same apply to bond holders who aren't shareholders in the New Co.?

Wouldn't they also have a call on any compensation as the same potential alleged fraud would have impacted their capital position, and they rank higher in the capital table of the business, so they'd logically have first call on any settlement.

Of course, as it's been demonstarted, they were the real owners of the business.

It's a bit like when you have a mortage on your house, but cant afford to make the payments, can you real say you own it..........

I bet I know what the answer; no one should be protected from loss except the shareholders. Afterall, they are the "owners" of the business.

"IMO compensation is often sought from any party that benefits from an illegal act and this does not have to be the same party who committed the act."

But, that doesn't answer the question does it?

Which party should the case be bought against? the employees who kept their jobs? the landlords who agreed the CVA? the debt holders who didn't get a hair cut? the shareholders of the banks that didn't take a hit?

You could argue they've also benefited.

So now we've got the situation that a crime isn't the important thing it's the beneficiary of the crime.....so if we find out that Debenhams did infact do something wrong that effected the bond hoders, the shareholders should be called upon to compensate them.

Wonderful for bond holders, first ranking, security and a gilt edged guarantee provided by the shareholders.

" the company "

If you mean Debenhams PLC, they might have to borrow some money to do that.....

We might be able to argue the toss about the caught case IF there was caught case to argue about.

I doubt there will even by a Debenhams PLC to bring to case agains in the future, unless you are suggesting an action against the Directors? I wonder how much that's likely to deliver for the shareholders? Minus the legal costs.

Or maybe you think against the lenders? En masse or just the new shareholders of Celine?

That's your big issue with a court case.

Who do you bring it against and if it's the smallest fish, the Board, how much is it actually going to benefit the shareholders anyway.

You mean because you're pumping your position again Pearls? That's the main similarity I can see.... :)

It's certainly, and always was, a gamble. I have very limited exposure to the debt. Even a complete wipe put wouldn't cause me a sleepless night, but I hope it does make it. If only for the employees. I'm sure on this board Sergio always will cause bad feeling, but at least the business has survived and alongside it employment for the staff.
I've now received my "consent payment", and it's good to see the penion fund is going to get some extra money. Obviously for me it's a going concern, so I'll keep posting as stuff hits my mailbox and alerts. I don't disagree with your comment about former holders.

https://www.lucid-is.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Financial-update-260419.pdf

From BBC:

Debenhams' creditors have backed a turnaround plan that will see the closure of 50 stores and rent reductions for others.

Landlords and others voted with a majority "significantly above" the required threshold of 75% on each of the board's proposals.

Debenhams' executive chairman Terry Duddy said: "I am grateful to our suppliers, our pension stakeholders and our landlords who have overwhelmingly backed our store restructuring plans.

"We will continue to work to preserve as many stores and jobs as possible through this process. This is a further important step to give us the platform to deliver a turnaround."

The turnaround plan involves a store closure programme under a process known as a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA), which also allows for rents to be renegotiated at stores that remain open.

The chain has already named 22 stores which will start closing next year, including those in Canterbury, Wolverhampton and Kirkcaldy.

Of the stores which stay open, 39 will stick to their current rental rates for the duration of their leases.

For the other stores, the company is aiming to secure rental reductions of between 25% and 50%.

Reported on Sky:

Stefaan Vansteenkiste, Celine's chief risk officer, said: "The investor consortium is a committed long-term owner, which has provided Debenhams with £200m in fresh funding for the financial restructuring process and to fund the company's operating turnaround.

"Within the consortium, there is extensive turnaround experience, which we will deploy to support the management's plan and to position Debenhams for a long-term successful future."

I've never really rated SPD. I bet against it in the high 700's and finally got out at the high 200's. From memory, that feels like a lifetime ago!

Even at 800p there was the usual BB cries of BUY!

it looks like an over valuation doesn't it. The question will be by how much. If it's large it might have an impact....

Back to Metrobank for me, page 81 of the Prospectus....Conditions. Hey, ho...the capital raises give me a little hope, and the yields not bad at 8% (give or take). I may have a little punt.

https://www.retailgazette.co.uk/blog/2019/04/debenhams-what-went-wrong/

Really detailed article.

"Wonder if these investigations will then go on to look at the Deb BOD and the pre-pack?"

I doubt It, DEB was a different company not controlled by SPD.

Sports Direct has been contacted by The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to ask about its disclosure of information surrounding a possible bid for Debenhams last year.

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has also queried how the retailer’s auditor, accounting firm Grant Thornton, valued its stake in Debenhams.

The two regulators launched an inquiry into Sports Direct’s financial accounts and compliance with rules on inside information, after concerns were expressed about how Grant Thornton valued its holding in Debenhams, which recently fell into administration.

Sports Direct tycoon Mike Ashley had his 29.7 per cent stake wiped out when Debenhams went into administration last month, after repeated attempts to acquire the department store chain and keep it from completing a refinancing deal with its lenders.

Following Sports Direct’s AGM in September, the the FCA is understood to have raised some questions with the sportswear retailer, and the company was forced to issue a statement saying it did not aim to place a takeover offer for Debenhams, according to The Times.

Sports Direct said its senior independent director, Simon Bentley, had been misunderstood on the situation when he allegedly told the media that the board could combine Debenhams with House of Fraser, the department store which Sports Direct bought out of administration in August last year.

Meanwhile, Grant Thornton was questioned by the FRC on the most recent audit of Sports Directs’ financial results, which could result in a sanction.

From the Retail Gazette

Looks like i

The FRC also looked at whether Sports Direct’s stake in Debenhams should have been accounted for as having enough influence over the company.

Yes, not much comment on here. I bought a little time ago, just under 100p

Looking at the possibility of adding more this month. There's just so many high options around at the moment.

(and MA did not accept any counter-proposal),

Overall, he just made the position even worse. Given the lack of confidence of the lenders and the hostility of SPD, the only obvious course for Board was Administration.

At least they respected the wishes of the major stakeholders, the lenders, and avoid the disasterous outcome of a disorderly, door closing, collapse.

I don't think there's much you can say that's positive about the Board, but at least they kept the lights on in an impossible position.

Caught between lenders who must have been highly concerne (or bought expecting this outcome) a hostile shareholder and the trading they could only offer a plan and positive outlook to calm lenders. Christmas was the last straw. To be honest, if it hadn't been for them, the Board I wouldn't have been suprised at a collapse mid 2018.

"MA offered to fully underwrite a decent rights issue for DEB which at the time would have provided enough cash"

But, not to the satisfaction of the lenders.

When you owe £500,000,000 and your profits look shakey, and very small in comparison to the turnover/cash needs ,then the reality is, however brutal, the power is with the lenders.

He didn't guarantee the bond holder, he didn't provide the confidence the lenders required. It's as simple as that.

That's why he stopped short of 30%. That was a clear message to bond holders.

As a consequence, some acted to protect their money, others to leverage the power they held.

As I said, you had several differnent lenders in the mix that included those that buy distressed debt and then take businesses private.

"Clearly things must have very suddenly deteriorated"

This was a business dependant on the goodwill of it's lenders. So, confidence was all. As the risk to the lenders grew, and the rhetoric was less friendly, they did what you expect. Protected their money.

"I cannot see how either of these would have hurt DEB"

Because lendesr thought he might make there position worse. That's why they didn't want him. They protected their position and money, end of.