Member Info for Fevertreeman

Yes indeed - and every time I think we have turned the corner, we come slap bang up against yet another issue, made worse by the mixing up of PL's private interests with his listed company. Would have sold but so massively under water what's the point. At least I exited Kefi with just a minor bath

Omnishambles as predicted by many hardened HAA watchers. He is a liability with other peoples money. Still wont affect his lucrative consultancy fee which rolls on and on and on as the delays have moved from weeks to months to years

The reason he isnt out on his ear is that he is Executive chairman and ceo and that there are no insitutions worth their salt invested in the company -they clearly know better. RAB has dont brilliantly as the vulture at the table, swooping in at 0.6p when he was desperate....expect another fund raise as I dont see how he can keep the lights on indefinitely. And you can kiss goodbye to the 30+ % he needs to close the financing. This is now a 2022 story IMHO

Please dont call me Cassandra but for months a number of us including myself have been warning that this project is not going to green-lighted any time soon and that HAA would kick the can again. The abject lack of governance at this company has to be seen to be believed and here is yet another example of HAa's Pinocchio abilities.

On Tues , I commented about the Proactive Forum:
" And here we are on cusp of October, and I fully expect that HAA will be wearing his rugby boots with neatly tied laces in readiness for a massive virtual can boot.......nothing the man has said or done (apart from his cash bonus attempted smashie and grabbie) would suggest he is capable of crossing the road let alone getting full financing over the line with monies actually available to start the mine build....ask him what footwear he is wearing.....might be a hint"

Hopefully they can get margins up which seem very low for a specialist software business at mid teens. This management team finally now has them on a clearly defined growth path - its early days , but there is evident very strong demand for their products and recent big wins bolster my belief that good things lie ahead.

Maris didnt know what he was getting himself into that much is clear. The FD is a different matter, but the impetus for the dreadful dreadful lack of proper stewardship rests firmly with McTiernan and the other board members. DOnt forget not one of them had any significant economic interest in the company but took their directors' fees and were clearly out of their depth when confronted with the rottweiler tactics of aggressive US style bondholders. They should have stood their ground but they caved in so blatantly that it was if the board had been captured by the mysterious Ad hoc committee.

Bernstein is doing the right thing here - the Board refused to buy back the bonds (and yet CA managed it) and spent millions to support what appears to be a secret cabal of bondholders hellbent on getting their hands on the cashflow from this business.
it is no surprise that every single board member resigned such was their craven behaviour.

Wel I think the simple answer to your question is this: the Board spent $17m of shareholders funds (emphasis on shareholders) pursuing a course of action that was inimical to those self same shareholders, refused to contemplate other options and were only prevented from handing over the company for next to zero to bondholders by the High Court. I think that warrants investigation, especially given the cloak of secrecy that McTiernan et al operated under.

A 17k is not small potatoes, so I hope that you aren't too under water. I fear that the people with real money are invested in proper businesses - Glencore, Anglo, Rio, BHP etc.....the only 'professional ' money HAA has managed to get on board is Phillip from RAB (hardly a ringing endorsement) who is quids in with his 0.6p entry level.

He should be called PEPSI - all froth in a can

He still needs another 40pc to come up with cash pledges. Did they baulk because of security concerns or HAA concerns?

And here we are on cusp of October, and I fully expect that HAA will be wearing his rugby boots with neatly tied laces in readiness for a massive virtual can boot.......nothing the man has said or done (apart from his cash bonus attempted smashie and grabbie) would suggest he is capable of crossing the road let alone getting full financing over the line with monies actually available to start the mine build....ask him what footwear he is wearing.....might be a hint

Minutes have to be a fair and accurate representation of board discussions, but yes, there will have been un-minuted conversations outside the board meetings as per any company. What is so damaging is the lengths the Board went to ignore all other courses of action, not to buy back bonds (assuming they were able to in the market which CA suggests they were), the shutting put of shareholders, the secrecy around the ad hoc bondholders, and then the attempt to use C-19 legislation to drive through the handover to bondholders on egregious terms. The Judge was crystal clear in his ruling and still the board continued to trash the company. The LSE that regulates AIM should insist on an inquiry into what happened, and I feel that is exactly what is going to happen.

And given the damage done to Grant Thornton after the revelations re the collapse of Patisserie Valerie, there is a real need for an investigation here into the actions of McTiernan and the Board of Directors, their interactions with the bondholders, the advice given and options presented by the advisers, and the Board's decision-making, and whether undue influence was brought to bear on that process.

I totally agree. The fact is that under McTiernan there was a flagrant disregard for their duties to stakeholders. Equally extraordinary was the decision to spend $17m of those same said shareholders funds to effectively represent the ad hoc group of bondholders whilst refusing to engage more broadly and esp with CA. That the High Court ruled so decisively against the old Board should send shivers down the spine of them and the advisers who burned their way through our money in an effort to appease aggressive bondholders. CA's language is very controlled, but such was the nature of BoD's behaviour that I cannot see how this can be just ignored. What I would give to see the Board minutes of those meetings

I couldn't agree more! One of teh big poker tells with the appalling BoD we suffered (and whom imho need to be forced to account for their actions through legal action) was the abject failure to back the company they represented and drew directors' fees from by putting their hands in their collective pockets.

Is what action is being considered against the previous board of directors who so deliberately and flagrantly failed to represent all stakeholders' interests and pursued a course of action that used up millions of pounds of shareholders' funds only for the red card to be waved by the Courts.

If anyone can be bothered, reading the Notes to Editors that accompany every RNS is enough to make long time shareholders spit their dummies:
for example:
"President Energy gives UK investors access to an energy growth story combined with world class standards of corporate governance, environmental and social responsibility."

One senses some real momentum here, under this management team

Are we there yet Harry?...........