Member Info for Timmit

Was thinking about the context of these appeals. The law stated that an appeal could take place once an offer had been rejected. Could CL2017’s offer to accept the land against the first charge have been argued to be an offer, one in excess of the price finally realised by the auctioneer?

LA - the Registration of Charge filed at Companies House on 10/10/2017 refers to CLP's share in CL17 on page 15 so is a charge over the assets of CL17 due to Eufingest lending the money to buy the first charge on Mediapolis. So, as RKB said, the charge is over a loan not bonds.

LA - They don't hold 3M "not in issue". The issue was for 9.9M euros as in that was the maximum that could be issued under that issue. Only 6.9M was ever issued so the other 3M doesn't exist anywhere!

This article is more than 4 years old. Some of the information stated is no longer relevant...

Holders from last year may remember that one of the court decisions was posted on a website but the court took several days to actually inform the CLP legal team so they awaited the official notification before announcing it via RNS.

Doesn't it normally work that auctioneer receives funds, deducts commission and remits remaining funds to beneficiary? Don't know how the farmer is affected by court action that could reverse auction result, that's an interesting one!

He may have backing from the environmental group opposing CLP but the existing use of agricultural land isn’t inconsistent with his family businesses in the area...

Date for the successful bidder to pay by is 22/11/2018 (120 days from auction date of 25/07/2018) but the RNS of 26/07/2018 did say "The proceeds can then be distributed according to the relevant procedural provisions of Italian Law." so hopefully not too long after that! Just depends how long procedural provisions of Italian Law take :-)

the debt with the first charge purchased in May 2017 was ringfenced by putting it in Clear Leisure 2017 Ltd and the lender given a charge over the shares of this company alone to satisfy their lending criteria. Also as the Italian authorities had a counterclaim against Mediapolis it presumably would have stopped any offsets being deducted as the first charge was held by a different entity than the shareholder entity...

No prob!

It is a subsidiary of Clear Leisure Plc as shown on Note 17 (page 41) of the year end accounts...

There's your clue KB007 - Mediapolis never sat as an asset on CLEAR LEISURE 2017 LTD but sat on Brainspark Associates Ltd (and Clear Leisure PLC at group level). The accounts that RKB referenced were not Clear Leisure Plc but its subsidiary CLEAR LEISURE 2017 LTD. The only activity on CLEAR LEISURE 2017 LTD was the purchase of the first charge on Mediapolis and the "profit" on this is shown in the accounts for that subsidiary.

Not a loss on Clear Leisure 2017 KB007 as this was the profit on the first charge.

Also, Max, the land is already in the accounts at the Auction amount so when the cash comes in it won't show as profit just will show a transfer on the balance sheet from Debtors to Bank. Of course, if they get more for the land then the difference will show as profit. The same is true of other proceeds from the Sardinian villas as they are not shown in the accounts.

Thanks Jstar, I reckon you're right...

But presumably this wasn't the "secret" overdrafts for almost £10M that PV announced over the weekend...That statement implies one facility but this unknown debt was due to at least 2 banks. Thanks for digging that out btw. Just shows that a cross company guarantee doesn't necessarily show up as a charge on any of the individual companies unless I've missed something.

What surprised me wasn’t the early settlement of the LJ related charges in the last year but the fact I couldn’t find any mention of overdrafts among the charges in any of the main PLC or associated companies. How does a bank organise an overdraft for a limited liability company with no guarantees in place?

Haha Rusty! Lol!

Hi Jamdan1, the bond holders are not a registered charity so they must feel that their ultimate (not necessarily short term) best interests are served by converting their outstanding bonds into shares. As a voting block they could have voted it down. As Eufingest had about 43% that left 57% of other holders that could have voted against the resolution. If they felt like turkeys voting for Christmas that’s what they would have done but they didn’t. They swapped the promise of having their cash eventually (possibly) returned with interest with share to give them some “skin in the game”. They must have taken a commercial view as these are hard nosed high net worth individuals and companies who are out to make a good return.

Banknote, if my calculations are correct Eufingest would have about 23.2% of the enlarged share capital after bond holders converted so the 30% scenario doesn’t even arise. I’d be interested if your own calculations come to the same figure...I’m sure you’ve made your own detailed projections rather than just using arbitrary inflated figures. Why not share them with the board to lend more credibility to your comments?