Member Info for LevsInvest

I think what is concerning a lot of people (myself included) is that despite having ‘ring fenced’ a separate company on paper, how do you in any meaningful way decouple the two businesses if one is reliant on the other. Is the ferry business going to continue trading if HARL folds? No. Therefore, ring fenced or not, the ferry business is reliant on UKEF funding. There’s been a lot of bravado and bluster on this board, but no one has adequately addressed that question and presumably that’s one of the reasons why treasury is getting itchy.

On the guarantee being for ‘general working capital that must be related to helping win export orders’ I think the proposal was to use it to pay back riverstone? To me that is stretching the definition, although UKEF being a Govt agency they might turn a blind eye to this.

So how can it be ring fenced if the subsidiary is completely reliant on the parent?

I get that they are separate legal entities and why it has been done like that (sensible), but the fact remains that if state aid helps the parent then by definition, it helps the subsidiary, ring fenced or not. The subsidiary doesn’t just carry on, after the whole shebang has collapsed.

Do we even know how much cash has been splashed on JW’s toy boat project? Or has there ever been a rationale given about why a shipbuilder wants to build a passenger service? Or when we’ll start seeing any returns? Or any potential impact assessment on the wider brand from reputational damage when they let people down (start any consumer facing business and there will be unhappy customers). Or even a business plan and cash-flow projections? Or as usual, will we have to wait until the accounts come out, middle of next year?

If the point of law is that straightforward, and the issue of state aid was first (publicly) known about from the Times article on Tuesday (let’s be honest H&W and their lawyers would have been informed well before) then why hasn’t it been put to bed already? I’d assume the treasury have lawyers too and they have reasons for their concerns. This hasn’t just appeared out of nowhere.

And meanwhile, the most important weekend of the company’s history and JW’s MIA playing with his Facebook friends.

Too many unanswered questions.

Glad you asked that Broomtree as I’ve been reading what people have to say (with much interest) thinking the same. Are there any corporate lawyers in the group who can help? Surely without H&W Group Holdings, there is no H&W (Scilly Ferries) Ltd, much in the same way that without refinancing there is no H&W? So from a purely practical point of view, whether money is ring fenced or not, U.K. Government aid will allow them to continue their Scilly Ferries venture? All above my pay grade, I’m afraid. As ever DYOR.

Glad I’m not the only one who has been pondering overnight about all of this. Somethings just not adding up though.

HARL comment to Telegraph yesterday was (exact quote): ‘A spokesman said: "These issues have not been identified to us as a barrier to securing

the loan guarantee.”’

JW on social media today (exact quote) ‘Everything we are doing in relation to Isles of Scilly is ring fenced as we suspected this may happen.’

Either you expected it or you didn’t. The statements don’t reconcile to me. Whether the legal issue is valid or not, Harland and Wolff should have been all over this from the start. To say ‘it’s not been identified as an issue’ is just negligent.

If JW spent as much time thinking about updating shareholders as he did about engaging with Scilly islanders over his cornflakes on Facebook, maybe we’d all know what the grand plan is and why operating a ferry service is so important to the potential detriment of a £1.6billion contract.

For those with an interest, I’d encourage you to get copies for the Telegraph and FT who have also now published similar stories to the Times (preferably before trading tomorrow). This is a doozie in the FT.

“The group is also engaged in pay negotiations with staff and “needs the money” to meet payroll, one person with knowledge of the business said.”

No. But newspapers often copy a scoop from another publisher citing them as a primary source.

They did ask the company for comment hence why HARL was quoted in the original article saying it was “inaccurate speculation” (the last paragraph in the article).

Which begs the question, if HARL knew that this was going to drop (would have been given a few hours to comment at least, but probably overnight), why they weren’t they quicker off the mark with the RNS.

If you’re not ahead of the story, whatever is published becomes truth. The Mail have now published similar, all based on the original Times story. Not sure about sacking the board but time to sack the advisors.

Probably interested in how the company’s money is being spent. If they hd 400 bookings for May, that equates to around five passengers per journey on a craft with capacity for 400. Maybe one or two of them would have been locals using their free trips, so Harl would have been looking at about £150 revenue per trip. Big hill to climb now they’ve spent more money on helicopter tickets and another jet RIB.

it’s on facebook.

https://www.********************471788599637917/permalink/2837736199709800/

The company doesn’t decide what crewing requirements are, the MCA and countless other safety bodies do. I don’t think some people on this page realise how little control H&W have over any of this. To be fair, I’m not convinced JW does either.

If they are going after the Calmac work (which would be sensible if looking to get into ferries market) then it sends an odd message to state in the video that they are looking to operate further services in the Scottish Islands (and Channel Islands). They could be a competitor to Calmac rather than a supplier, but I guess they have form with that as they started out as a potential supplier to ISSC. What strikes me is how starting these services complements their existing business. The boats they've purchased are all built in different (competitor?) shipyards, so doesn't in any way show off their credentials. Watching with interest.