Member Info for Lottie123

Try ReformUK Romford, I am chairman of the East London Branch

Fb Romford?

Philip Hyde

Our shareholder group of approx 30% of holders have had a meeting with our legal advisers.

The claim will be lodged soon and this is your chance to join.

The initial stage cost has been accepted and the cost of joining this action are based on holding size eg upto 250,000 shares is £100 +vat

Upto 500,000 £150 +vat

Upto 1m £200 +vat

Upto 2.5m £250 +vat

Above £350 +vat.

If you want more info or just want to join...contact me. LinkedIn, FB etc most know my real identity.

Part 2

b. He should have issued an RNS on Monday 16th September informing the shareholders and cleansing the market of the intent to put the plc into administration BEFORE going to the press

c. Who is going to hold Mr Downs accountable for these breaches

11. Mr Downs has appointed Ms. Alison Beveridge, PwC and Teneo without any formal competitive process. On what basis were these decisions made given the extortionate costs being incurred by the Company on these people? The weekly costs of this interim team are in excess of £50,000 which in itself is extortionate. Added to this are legal costs which are wholly unnecessary and self-inflicted.

1. What is the basis of putting the plc into administration

2. Where is the analysis disclosed to shareholders recommending administration

3. The plc is the 100% owner of all subsidiary companies and the plc has put tens of millions of pounds into each subco to incubate and grow them. There is a large intercompany debt due to the plc from the subcos. If the plc is declared insolvent, by definition, every subco is also insolvent as they are unable to repay the debts owed to the plc. Therefore, every subco needs to be put into administration first

4. Putting subcos into administration will result in recovery from the sale of assets – part of it will go to the lender and part to the plc and shareholders. Therefore, why has the Board decided to adopt a top-down approach that is completely wrong and not in the interests of the shareholders

5. The Board are being dishonest – they will use accounting methods to move the intercompany debts into an intermediary company and then claim that the plc is defunct- this is completely unethical, disingenuous and not in the interests of the shareholders

6. The shareholders who have called for the EGM are genuine and have been attending AGMs in the past in person. This can be confirmed by the previous board, the NOMAD and the share registrar. Mr Downs and Mr Fort are blocking an EGM and wrapping the shareholders in red tape. They are actively pursuing a policy of no formal engagement and are avoiding an EGM at ALL costs. What are they so afraid of? Are they afraid that their actions and misbehaviours will be called into question?

7. Should the plc be put into administration, this will trigger an event of default in the FSS contract. How does the board think any value will be attributed to the Company if the FSS contract is terminated?

8. Mr Downs himself has, on several occasions, admitted that the business is a very good one and it makes economic and commercial sense to operate the Company as a group – yet he is embarking upon a journey of value destruction

9. Does Mr Downs not understand that when the parent company is put into administration, the perception in the wider market is that the subcos will also be put into administration. How is this strategy to anyone’s benefit?

10. Mr Downs had press briefings on 13th September stating that there was no value in the plc and that he was going to put it into administration. This is a material event and even though the Company’s shares are suspended, the Board is still bound by AIM regulations. Mr Downs has failed on two counts and is breach of AIM regulations:

a. He should have issued an RNS on 19th August informing shareholders of Navantia’s notice of intent to terminate the procurement package of the FSS contract. This is a material event and a clear breach of AIM regulations

b. He should have issued an RNS on Monday 16th September informing the shareholders and cleansing the market of the intent to put the plc into administration BEFORE g

A close in FSS that reminded

This should read...a clause in the FSS contract that required significant investment

As a shareholder group representing 30% of the company, we have informed numerous media outlets that we will boycott this meeting until the threat of administration is removed.

What will you gain from attending on line? Can you stop administration? No. Can you discover what assets have already been sold and for what? Doubt it. Will they tell you the full list of interested parties and what they are prepared to pay? Doubt it. Basically, it will be a chance to hear what a mess things were and why there is no shareholder value...all this despite the fact that the new CEO thinks the four yards represent a fantastic, unique opportunity and in all, HW is a great company...his words not mine.

Please join us in boycotting the meet and where possible, share your anger with media.

The news release today says it all. You are no longer considered worthwhile where the future of HW is considered. The four yards were bought, equipped and restarted on your shoulders. Yes, Riverstone was important but the government put a close in FSS that reminded significant investment in the companies ability to meet the challenge. That does not come cheaply. The government have some serious questions to answer in what is, I believe, a serious dereliction of duty...please join us

Thank you.

Test

mary. i understand your caution. when people have contacted me via my personal email lodged on here, i give them my name and phone number which allows a search on linkedin or fb to check me out.

being part of this group has given members details of our contact with the company and meetings due to take place next week. on this lse page you will get plenty of speculation, much of it wild and often negative. we deal with facts and no pointless banter. if nothing else, it will help with clarity surrounding our current plight.

************************

we are at nearly 12% of shareholders in our action group now. let me know if you want to join. will be meeting with company very soon to discuss our future (as shareholders) .

***********

I wonder if, as shareholders, we have a claim against the company, the board and individual board members.

We were told in the December RNS that ministers had agreed and the deal just needed the final touches. Then, certain high rank company individuals, sent messages to more significant private shareholders that the deal was basically done and will be finalised soon. All of this is tantamount to fraud. It encouraged shareholders not to sell.

Anyone interested???

it appears to me that the new management have two options.

if they believe 2025 revenues of £325m+ are possible, the company is a going concern as a public quoted business.

for this to happen the government will have to step in and guarantee the falklands contract which i am sure they have influence over given the huge onging cost (to british taxpayers) defending the islands. additionally, the government could give assurances to riverstone of further investment in ni defence industries given that the region gets the smallest per capita spend of any of the nation states. with these assurances, it is viable (for riverstone) to raise the debt gearing knowing that free cash flow should be possible by end 2024, with positive ebitda in 2025. once the newly built facilities and machinery are hitting higher capacity utilisation rates, a refinancing would substantially reduce the interest component of ebit leading to overall, net profit.

the other option...is to declare bankrupcy. sell scottish assets. sell ferry and associated commercial coastal operations. mortgage appledore. use the cash to keep the fss contract alive and build a new business from the ashes...if riverstone agree which i guess they will have little option.

the government have little choice but to allow hw to continue with the contract (the press will have field day if all 1,500 are laid off) and may well be prepared to front load some payments (for fss) to ensure employment.

all in all it's a ****e show. at the last 4 investor meets (2 agms) i accused jw and ar of putting the cart (costs) in front of the horse (revenues). of course they scoffed.

my belief (and hope) is that the government recognises that having encouraged the company to push on and make significant investments in both facilities, machinery and people (especially apprenticeships) they cannot turn their back when that company, albeit due to a bit of stupidly (don't get me started on scilly isles) needs a little help to see through the total regeneration of four important manufacturing facilities in areas of high economic difficulty.

riverstone are staring down the barrel of a gun. if they are not flexible, they could lose all.

Tonyh1975 into the bin you go. You have no knowledge of how difficult it is to get a manufacturing business of size up and running in this country. Your comments are just vindictive. You join about 15 other posters who give nothing of value on here. You will probably reply with vitriol but rest assured I will not see it. Have a nice day.

Over the years, several European shipyards have had to have government intervention to survive. Below is just the latest. The Europeans know it is important to help this industry survive in the face of unprecedented government supported Asian competition. Europe must retain the ability to build ships, as must we.

https://maritime-executive.com/article/germany-is-discussing-financial-bailout-for-meyer-werft

New boy on the AIM market, Rosebank Industries will be looking for industrial companies which have undervalued potential. The management of the company Rosebank) have excellent pedigree in this type of value enhancing investment, having made Melrose an incredible success story doing just that. It seems they are looking for fresh challenges. I cannot think of a better example of a company with great potential but missing one vital ingredient...competent management. This may be a bit harsh on JW and AR because if the government's of the last 30 years had encouraged pension funds to back British companies, it may well be that HW would be a £100m+ market cap company today.

Your bickering is beyond childish so in the filter bin you go. Won't see anything you post from now on. I recommend people filter to save reading the tosh they and many others, post. BearleyCalls and SuperheroSam.

Sorry...addendum.

The navy have been talking of the need to accelerate the FSS contract. An easy way to solve the issue, start contract officially in 2024 and pay part contract to HW early, say £100m. Simples. Not a loan plus speeds up process whilst supporting levelling up.

The Guardian talks of FSS being completed elsewhere. The contract included the lions share of the £75m upgrade to Belfast which would look like a huge embarrassing own goal should it (HW) not complete as planned. Additionally, the competing bids were much higher which implies not giving the loan guarantee as agreed, would eventually cost HMG far more in hard cash than just a guarantee.

The talk of bankruptcy is premature and appears to be either misinformed or purposeful negativity. The decision would be in the hands of Riverstone who hold the companies debt.

They will have decisions to make, sure, but with the potential for cash flow breakeven around the corner (£300-£400m revs est 2025) and potential EBITDA positive on the horizon, I cannot see why they would pull the plug creating a difficult process of liquidation. They could of course, withhold additional funding in an effort to get favourable debt equity terms but they are not in the business of owning companies. With shareholder value being so low now, wiping it out has little real benefits in the bigger picture. Labour are now pulling the strings so all is to play for. They have two choices, first to sign the 80% UKEF deal as planned giving them much kudos showing they are not anti-business but pro levelling up...or they simply refuse, putting Riverstone in a dilemma. Refusal would be branded an act of socalist vandalism given the need to encourage investment in the high unemployment regions.

Should the government take the latter, chaotic inducing decision, I feel shareholders have a possible legal case vs HMG given the December UKEF related RNS stated that ministers had agreed the deal in principal. I understand we now have a different government but the reality is, if the company have written evidence of agreement which was later refused, it is potentially a contractual breach.

Looking forward to a decision this week.

The AGM is due. Should be fun if things go to plan with UKEF.