Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
“Putin's style of leadership has not changed in 20+ years on power”
It has changed a lot. Look at Putin’s old interviews, when he said common sense things, and now look at what he’s saying and doing now. He was a decent leader in his first eight years, but being too much time in power has taken a toll on his sanity. That’s why term limits are so great. Imagine a US with Bush JR still in charge…
I can’t buy anymore. My broker doesn’t allow to trade this stock now. This is ridiculous. The order is rejected because of “sanctions”.
What do you people think about the Interactive Investor proposed acquisition? Will you vote for it, or against it? From what i’ve seen, it seems they are greatly overpaying for the acquisition, and are throwing shareholder’s capital away. We would have been much better if they did share buybacks with that amount of cash, instead of throwing it away on an acquisition with very low ROI.
Why a July call option on BMW? What do you expect to happen with BMW share price, when and why?
“but maybe it's also investors jobs to avoid highly geared buisnesses with wafer thin margins and poor management. if they don't undersatnd or can't live with the risk."I don’t have a problem with the risks, and I am ok with my loss here. Never complained about it. My problem is with the crooks who brought the company to its knees deliberately while making false statements.The company was not highly geared when in invested. They took huge debts afterwards, while their EBITDA collapsed. They spent the company’s money to “redesign” some of the stores so that the lenders will have some good stores to keep. Instead of focusing on cutting debt, they took more debt to avoid a takeover by MA. Their job was to reduce debt and keep the company viable, not to fend off a takeover attempt.It is obvious that they didn’t act in the interest of shareholders for a lot of time, but they lied and presented falsehoods in their reports.If they were honest about the situation and their plans, I would have never invested in this company.
“That ''a simple lack of judgement by directors" isn't a breach of fudiciary duties.“
According to your logic, if you give your car to a valet parking service to park it, and instead they go for a joyride and crush it into a tree, it is only a “simple lack of judgement” on their part, not a breach of their duty. Of course, you are not entitled to any compensation for the destroyed car, because it was a “lack of judgement” on their part, and you have to foot the bill for it.
It seems the job of directors nowadays is to load companies with debt and enter administration with them, to prolong their jobs.
The company was stolen. There is no doubt about that. The fake sales process is a sham. The conditions attached to it are there to make sure nobody will buy, so that the thieves can keep Debenhams themselves, and justify the theft by saying that there were no buyers. It was an inside job executed with the help of corrupt directors.
“I reckon part of the problem is that it's went bust but 'Debenhams' still exists and continues to trade. I'm coming to the conclusion that it almost would have been better if it had been wound up an dissolved.
That would have been more acceptable to many small shareholders since they would less likely feel they'd been robbed compared to the conclusion we got.”
Totally agree with you.
If the company is dissolved, than I have no issue with losing all my investment. But when the company is taken over by somebody else without shareholder consent, it is an obvious robbery. The BOD is assigned by shareholders. It is natural to assume that the board will represent shareholders interests when they are voted in by shareholders, not by lenders. When the board works with lender to sabotage the equity so that lenders can steal the company from shareholders, the foul play is obvious. The ‘Redesigned’ strategy was meant to burn the cash faster so that the company will be in urgent need of money and lenders could take over. It also helped lenders by improving a few stores at the expense of the larger group, since lenders intended from the beginning to close many stores using a CVA. Sergio and the BOD have executed the strategy of the lenders to help them takeover and do a CVA long before the company was out of money. They ran it into the ground deliberately.
“It wasn't some conspiracy or "legal robbery", it all played out pursuant to the clear rights and remedies available to the lenders and bondholders in the publicly-available terms and conditions of their debt documents. Not the board's fault if you didn't read them.”
It is the board’s fault for lying and hiding the truth in the company reports.
It is also the board’s fault for refusing MA’s proposed cash injections, which were asking only for a little bit more equity and the position of CEO. Considering the total wipeout of shareholders that happened because of the chosen pre-pack plan, it is obvious that it was in the best interest of shareholders to suffer a small dilution of their shares by accepting the interest free loan from SPD and making MA the CEO. They refused to accept the cash injection from the major shareholder which was a decision against the interest of shareholders. This is a breach of fiduciary duty. It has nothing to do with who will get the company if it goes into administration. The company should have never went into administration, because it was solvent if it accepted MA’s help.
If the shares will be relisted after the CVA, it will be the shares in the new company which belongs to the lenders. It will not be the shares we currently have, which are now worthless.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they will relist the company, so they can sell their stolen shares to the public and find a new group of naive shareholders to steal from in the future.
The shares will not be relisted, because all the assets have been moved to a new company. The shares we have are worthless now. The company has been stolen from us. If it will prosper in the future, we will get zero from it, because the company belongs to the lenders now.
The only possible way for our shares to have any value again would be if SPD would sue the company and manage somehow to prove the fraud and reverse the pre-pack process in court. I doubt this would happen, since nothing is resolved in courts and theft is legal nowadays.
“Nobody robbed the shareholders. People were warned on this board for months. A lack of understanding about valuation, debt, directors' duties and restructuring processes does not mean you were robbed.”
If people are warned on a random internet board that they are about to be robbed, this doesn’t mean robbery isn’t robbery.
The problem here lies with the directors’ duty. They had a duty to protect shareholders interests and not to lie. Instead, they acted against the interests of shareholders and kept lying for over a year. Read their reports. All they said was that the business is doing well, it is cash generative and has plenty of debt headroom. Suddenly, when they realized MA could try to get control of the company, they discovered that the company is deeply in debt (it was not 6 month ago according to their reports), that the debt problem is urgent despite the bonds maturing after one year, and that a pre-pack should be done faster than a shareholder meeting can be called.
It is lies and robbery all the way. You don’t have to be an accountant, a lawyer or a prosecutor to see robbery for what it is.
Sadly, I think you are right. This is what bad corporate governance and breach of fiduciary duty means. When the BOD acts against the interest of shareholders, only because they don’t like the biggest shareholder. It is a disgrace that something like this is legal, especially when we are talking about a listed company.
I think bondholders will be on the losing side in the end, because the tier 1 lenders which are in charge now will only look for themselves. They stole from shareholders first, and bondholders were happy because they were spared for now, but they are next on the list. When the direct lenders will need to steal some more, the bondholders will be their next target, as there is nothing left to steal from shareholders.
Thieves don’t care about their victims. They steal as much as they can.
In this case, they wanted to get rid of MA so they can have free hand on how to distribute the spoils of their plunder among themselves.
“Good to see the Debenhams shops still open,I don't care the money I lost, thankfully I wasn't stupid enough to have all my money on Debenhams.”
This is the most frustrating part. Seeing the shops still open while they belong to some thieves who stole them from shareholders. I hope they won’t be able to save the company and in the end it will go bankrupt. I’d love to see the creditors lose their money. They were happy to steal ours.
“If you want an advertisement for a banana republic stock market then this is it. The regulator can sit back and do nothing, but if they do then it will only encourage more and more abuse and before you know it London's reputation will be in tatters.”
Spot on. Could have not say it better.
“there was.... 10% better than 0p - no?”
Well, after losing 90% on a share, i’d rather see the company collapse and lose all, then salvage 10% and run the risk of a reversal. Imagine how it would feel to sell after a 90% loss and then see the company being saved and the share going back up after you sold at the bottom. A 100% wipeout is much easier to digest. At least you are not the only one who lost.
Most of the times you don’t get to choose the t&c of brokers agreements. You have to accept their standard t&c in order to have an account.
The problem with shorting is that people who short shares usually do it at times of high volatility and bad news, as they are more knowledgeable than regular buy and hold investors. This is why shorting x amount of shares can cause the price to go down 5% while closing the short trade once volatility has settled down can result in a price increase of only 1%. This creates a net negative effect on the SP even after the short trade has been closed, only because of the timing of the execution. If shorting was not allowed, there wouldn’t be big crushes at every negative RNS and share prices would be less volatile, which would help troubled companies but would disadvantage day traders and brokers.
“Surely no one to complain to than yourself? There was ample time to sell out. No?
I warned everyone before Xmas for example.”
The share price was already worthless before Xmas (4p). Those who bought at 40p already lost 90% of their investment, so there was nothing left to salvage.