Member Info for Metamorphosis84

I agree with you to an extent. The right decision would have been to propose a debt for equity a year ago. But I suspect shareholders would have voted it down then as well? And that would have meant no bonuses? Oh dear. Seems to me shareholders just won't have it that they have made a mistake and caught a cold. It will be interesting to see what alternative shareholders come up with, again pure speculation but I think that it will be something along the lines of "we won't accept share dilution because thats not fair and the lenders are being greedy. Lenders, can we borrow some more money from you please?"

All work and no play...... Irv would appear to be a very leaky ship, now, is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

Interesting article and well worth a read. I have said before and tend to agree that 2.5% of something is better than 100% of nothing. https://www.building.co.uk/focus/interserve-will-its-latest-rescue-plan-save-the-struggling-contractor/5097836.article

Will the last executive turn off the lights!

Rarely get days better than this one.

Mike Ashley as Chairman would be a good start.

Good Morning. But what will the afternoon bring?

Here we go..... Lets see if this is a little blip or a TSB style disaster.

Seems to me that most of the distaste towards Mike Ashley is borne out of good old fashioned jealousy. He has got genuine business acumen that has got him to where he is now. Ok, so I probably wouldn't want to have a drink with him but... no actually I probably would rather a drink with Mike Ashley than some of the dour, joyless and sanctimonious characters here.

It seems like a logical move from the lenders point of view. Again, if you look back to last March, some saw this coming. Metamorphosis84 20th March 18 So if the worst were to happen and Interserve were to go into administration liquidation, who would have the best claim to the assets, the owners of the debt or the owners of the shares?

I think if the lenders and don't get their way, then they very well might decide to call it a day

The buying of the debt by Emerald was a bad thing for IRV, no doubt. A number of people here said so at the time but were shouted down. As usual. For instance my own scepticism: Metamorphosis84 20th march 18 If Emerald have such confidence in Interserve, why have they publicised the purchase of debt, not shares? Was met with responses, such as this: Billtucker89 21st March 18 Where are All the derampers that were saying shareholders will be wiped? It's funny how they ate no where to be seen, when it's clear they have been bullshitting but claim they are experts and have built themself a fortune. Met84 et al close your shorts at the earliest oppurtunity... So yeah, Emerald buying the debt was a huge red flag, and voting in favour of the onerous refinancing was a mistake. Again, a number of people here said it at the time. Unfortunately for those who went long or stayed long at the time including Coltrane made the wrong call. They should have known this would happen.

Why should lenders take any pain whatsoever? It is Interserve that keep defaulting. And its Interserve's shareholders who voted for the refinancing and for the re-election of officers and for the remuneration of officers.

"In addition, the Company will be issuing warrants to the providers of the new cash and bonding facilities with the right to subscribe for new shares at 10 pence per share (the nominal price of each share). If exercised this would provide the warrant holders with an interest of up to 20% of the post-issue share capital." Just a thought, re the above was detailed in the refinancing document in April 2018. So did the lenders take up the warrants? And if so does that mean that as well as owning the debt, they also own 20% of the voting rights?

If they do play ball and stump up another 75m, then how long will it be before they come back for even more?

The last thing that Interserve needs is legal wranglings which will be
1. Protracted
And
2. Expensive.

And say such legal proceeding took 6 months thats a further 25 x 6 = 150m more debt to add on. By which time the debt has gotten far to far from being salvagable.
Oh and they wouldn't get the 75 million working capital needed to trade with.
Existing shareholders would be better voting for this deal because 2.5% of something is more that 40% of nothing.

The point is that the debt is growing and unsustainable, which is why the board is proposing D4E.
Now that is severely to the detriment of existing shareholders or at least Coltraine consider it detrimental. So they want to stop the D4E and sack the board.
Fine.
But it still doesn't get the debt down.
They have yet to propsose a credible alternative. That is why this is being compared by some to Brexit.

That is an increase of debt of over £300,000 per day since the 23rd November trading statement.

What stands out to me in that calculation is the existing debt of £755m which I understand to be correct as of yesterday.

Which means that means that the net debt from November £650m, just two months ago, has grown by a further £25m plus the £75m if including new facilities (should the D4E get through)
So however good the Ebitda is, the debt grows at an even faster rate.

What a mess. I mean really what a total and utter mess.

The board announce that hurrah, after much negotiation they have agreed a de leveraging plan.

Only for a major shareholder to apparently object. This in one trading session and apparently with no alternative plan for getting the debt down or refinancing?