|As you say soggy...who knows! See you next year same time same place!!
Enjoy the Bank holiday weekend.|
|Time for my annual post to the few CCHers left on here:
The accounts and annual report to 30th June 2015 arrived recently. Haven't studied them in detail but it looks to me like the situation is still exactly the same, waiting for this court case to be resolved. We still have assets and even revenue but once again huge outgoings, mostly on legal fees. Wages & salaries (Mr. Fosset, presumably as the only director??) again - £150k.
If anyone wants a copy I've scanned it into a pdf. email me on [email protected].com and I'll send you a copy.
The whole sorry saga is once more in the notes, but no update, it looks word for word like the previous year's.
I know we've all given up on them, but there is still money in the company, they are still trading (at least they have loaned money to a co. Mr Fosset is involved with!) As others have posted previously, maybe it's just a long game to bleed any assets out year by year, or maybe the court case will be finally settled and we might get something back. Who knows...|
CCH upgrade to Overweight. The soft drinks category is very resilient to
macroeconomic volatility which bodes well for CCH given current
uncertainty in Europe. We believe CCH’s medium-term guidance is
strongly underpinned by positive operating leverage on a now more
efficient cost base and we see room for significant further cost optimisation,
particularly in the key EMs of Russia and Nigeria.
Given strong FCF
generation, we expect the balance sheet to be left under-geared within a
year, and we expect CCH will either return capital (€1bn is 18% of market
cap) or invest in value accretive M&A. The Coca-Cola bottling landscape is
currently changing in Africa and we believe CCH is well placed (track
record in Nigeria and ability to invest) to take on additional bottling assets
in key growth territories.
|Article on ShareProphets covering CCH:
Agreed, let's hope we're pleasantly surprised one day...
Still think the way shareholders have been totally starved of information since the suspension in 2007 (8 year ago!)is utterly shocking...
Financing was for a company for which Mr F is a director....why does that not surprise me? A bit of positioning for the final denouement, I wonder... I'm not casting nasturtiums but my feeling is still that the most likely outcome here is the that the value will be stripped out by somebody (whoever) and shareholers will lose out. Is limited liability for us fellows after all, right?! Wos expect!!
Good luck, Moor/Soggy, nice to talk to you.|
|A good point, although I think there's something in the accounts which says that the financing was for a company in which Mr. F is a director. There may be other deals but that one is easily understood.
I think we've all written it off...but who knows, we may get a surprise some day...|
Don't think anyone's listening, to be honest. I've stated my piece as far as my understanding of the legal position goes, albeit on very limited information we have been given. I wrote my stake off some time ago is the truth so I will be pleasantly surprised if that turns out not to be the case. I've never personally heard of a company suspended (though voluntarily)for 8 years (and continuing...) that has returned Lazarus-like to the market after that time. I haven't got any more time to devote to it I'm afraid. Question for you is this: what can you do if the people in the company ignore any request for information from shareholders? Answer to that is squat I am afraid. Erin Nil has a controlling stake of this company (60%). He can pass or block just about any resolution proposed by members at a meeting. He is probably the only person who truly knows what is going on. If he chooses to ignore any communication (like Mr Fosset) I do no see any remedy for the likes of us. Disappointing but that's it.
Peculiar thing, Soggy, is that despite everything it is still in business and trading profitably. That to me is one of the most surprising things of all. I say that because if I am ordering goods and services from a company, particularly financial ones where there is a commitment over a long period of time, it is a giant red flag to deal with a company that has this sort of uncertainty hanging over it. I personally would neither borrow from nor lend to a company in this position. Will it be here this year or the next? Who knows.|
|Also re Charles Ridley. Left to fester in jail in Dubai... After all this time??? Surely not. Why has the Foreign Office not been petitioned to intervene ? Shocking IMO.
Time we started stirring this up ..any ideas Lionel?|
|Salaries are in the accounts as around £150,000. This may be entirely his, or there may be others, but I suspect he's getting well paid for sitting on it all.
But wouldn't it be better all round for it to get back into real business!?
Have you tried to contact him Lionel?|
|Not sure Mr Fosset is that bothered. To use a mining analogy, this company is on "care and maintainance", ie just enough is being done to keep it going in the event of it emerging from its coma after 8 years, probably not that likely in all honesty. Mr Fosset is presumably drawing a salary? That the limit of his interest?
Shareholders have an interest in this company recognised by law. Starvation of information for investors over such a protracted period of time is deeply shocking. Why can they not tell us what the up to date legal position is? Is it nothing to do with us, really?! Has process actually been issued in the courts by Bank of Dubai, for example, has it been seen by any judge to date? If it has not it is not sub judice so there is no obstacle to telling us. What's the matter with these people?|
|Perhaps if some more of us were to contact the one director, Mr. Fosset, and ask the same thing: "Why has it not gone to court?", perhaps he might give us something.
Spare a thought , please, for Charles Ridley, an old mucker of mine from Bahrain, who AFAIAA is still rotting in a Dubai jail.
Charles headed up the a forfait finance business (originally in Bahrain) that was part of the CCH empire.
|Well said Lionel. I have tried to contact him on twitter or linked in but no success, I emailed years ago with no reply. I do think he should have tried harder to inform the shareholders.|
I thought their Counsel said they believed there was a good defence to the claim, particularly as the debt was repaid in 2007. Legal advice does vary, granted, but if it is from Counsel you would expect that to be a senior practising barrister specialising in that area who would be completely up to date on the case law (which can conflict, again granted).
What puzzles me inordinately here is this: Dubai Bank will have absolutely unlimited financial resources which will include, most people would think, lawyers and non-lawyers, the best legal Counsel going. That being the case, if their case was a slam dunk, would they have not filed suit and won years ago? Could it be their advice is too that it is not that strong a case and they might actually lose? If they did not file their writ/claim years ago I think they would be statute-barred by now. You got a strong case, why would you take the unnecessary risk of being statute-barred? Makes no sense to me whatsoever. It's daft. If they lost having filed suit and gone to court, our Company would of course be entitled to all costs re their successful defence.
I too would be delighted to get 0.35p a share back on my holding (now only 3000 shares- that would be a tidy sum!). I expect that NAV has gone down now given the £1 million loss reported this year after the impairment.
I'm not very impressed with communication to shareholders from the Board over a long period of time. What we got this time is a rehash of what we've had for the last few years. After 2 years shy of a decade I find the whole thing extraordinary.
Hope is not extinguished but I will be pleasantly surprised to see anything back on this which is why I wrote it off years ago. I think the value will be stripped out of it somewhere along the line and the shareholders will lose out or it will go into administration and the value will be lost in winding-up.
Both those things have happened to me before. Even Erin Nil (still owns 60%+?) might not be able to stop that, though you would hope the size of his personal investment would make him not a pushover. He has not covered himself in glory either. I've not seen single communication from him to shareholders in 8 years. Perhaps he cannot comment "for legal reasons". If that is the case it is one enormous cop-out. Who is actually responsible for his debacle anyay?
C'Mon, Erin, speak to us!|
|Lionel thanks for your contribution and I agree with your points. It is a great pity the shareholders are unable to give the board some backing and it would be good to have some legals offering an opinion.|
|I'm still receiving the annual report as well. Though I wrote it off as an investment ages ago I still think there is a glimmer of hope you will get something back if any case goes the company's way as appears more than possible from company Counsel's opinion. Original debt was paid in November 2007 as posted above. It seems pretty vindinctive to me for a bank to be doing this to a small company which is still trading profitably, with a positive EPS and increasing turnover and a good NAV still in its shares. It is crippling. You would hope a court would see it like that. It feels like a case of pools and sharks - does somebody want to take all the value out of this company? I do fear share holders might lose out if there is an administration if it cannot continue - you know how it goes, knocked down to the highest bidder who make s killing on it and just about everything else eaten up in liquidation fees. How many time have I seen that?
As someone with a fair bit of legal knowledge, what surprises me is how long this has dragged on - two years shy of a decade is ridiculous!!!The remedy I would have thought centres around what the bank considers as a breach of a term of the lending contact (loaning for long/medium term by CCH instead of short term, as per contract, was it?).
If the bank had sued in contract it would have gone to court years ago surely?
There is a statute of limitation for suing for breach of contract (from memory I think it is three years from the actual breach of contract, though might be six)? What on earth is going on? Could not CCH(now Oiax)force the issue by seeking a declaration from a court that they are not in breach of contract. They've got the resources. Why on earth not! The business is in effect crippled as stated above. Any more legal people out there got a view on that?|
|yes, I'm also still getting sent the report, 7 years on from suspension isnt it now - Oiax Limited, always have to think back to what it relates to, ie CCH. Wonder if we will ever see a return ?|
|Any CCHers left on here? The accounts and annual report to 30th June 2014 arrived today. Haven't studied them in detail but it looks to me like the situation is just the same, waiting for this court case to be resolved. We still have £6m in assets and £1m cash, there was even revenue of £380k (4.8p per share) nearly £1 spent, big hike from last year, mostly on legal fees. Wages & salaries (Mr. Fosset, presumably as the only director??) up from £100k to £150k.
If anyone wants a copy I've scanned it into a pdf. [email protected].com
Here's the sorry saga as contained in the notes.
16 Contingent liabilities
Group and Company
On 16 August 2007, trading in the Company's shares on AIM was suspended following an announcement that the Company was in discussions regarding certain of its funding lines. These discussions were necessitated as a result of one of the Company's principal funding banks (the "Bank") indicating that it intended to terminate agreements with the Company and CCH Europe GmbH ("GmbH") following a review by the Bank which revealed that approximately US$340 million of lending advanced through Gmbl I had not been applied to short term receivables but to longer term commitments. The Bank demanded immediate repayment of all funds (amounting to approximately US$500 million) advanced under those agreements by the Bank on its own behalf and on behalf of a second bank for which it was acting as agent. In view of the threat of disruption and uncertainty caused to the Group's business by these developments, the Board decided to request suspension of trading in its shares and entered into negotiations with the Bank.
On 19 August 2007 the Company and GmbH concluded a restructuring agreement with the Bank (the "Agreement"). As part of the Agreement, the Company sought to limit its liabilities. Accordingly the Company agreed to transfer GmbH to Eren Nil who, amongst others, is also a guarantor under the Agreement and who, together with GmbH, has been independently advised in relation to the Agreement. Under the Agreement, the Company acknowledged that, save in the event of a default situation under the Agreement, the sum of US$50 million was due and payable by the Company to the Bank as a primary obligation in respect of the advances made by the Bank to the Company. The Company also guaranteed the repayment of a total amount up to a maximum of US$100 million (including the US$50 million primary obligation). The amount of this guarantee was to be reduced by any amounts paid to the Bank by the Company and/or GmbH from the proceeds of the receivables.
On 7 November 2007 the Company discharged its primary obligation to the Bank in full. The Company, however. remained liable under the Agreement for the amount guaranteed less amounts repaid by the Company and/or by or on behalf of GmbH. As of the date of these financial statements, certain repayment obligations under the Agreement have not been met. Accordingly the Bank has notified the Company that it believes that the Company's liability under the guarantee has crystallised. If successfully called, the amount of the Company's remaining guarantee would be approximately US$40 million.
Following the entering into of the Agreement, the Board considered a number of alternative strategies and concluded that shareholders' interests would best be served by seeking to conserve the Company's funds and if possible to make a distribution to shareholders as soon as possible. To this end the Company sought to negotiate a release from the Agreement from the Bank so that the Company would not have any liability under that agreement (contingent or otherwise) thus enabling a distribution to ordinary shareholders to be made. The Company has sought to persuade the Bank of the merits of such a release on the basis of a number of reasons including the fact that the Company had repaid its primary obligation of US$50 million to the Bank, and it was in all parties' interests to ensure that independent minority shareholders' interests were considered.
In June 2008, the Bank publicly announced that it had seized various real estate assets in the UAC that were provided as collateral under the Agreement, and in October 2008, the Bank stated that it expected to recover the full amount of the loan in question from the seizure of those assets.
The Board was encouraged by this development, particularly given the apparent public confirmation by the Bank that the real estate assets were sufficient to cover the Bank's exposure. The Board has continued to negotiate with the Bank in an effort to reach an agreement between the parties and secure a release for the Company. In the meantime the Bank has obtained judgment against the principal debtors under the Agreement for the full indebtedness to the Bank. The Bank also commenced proceedings against the Company in the Commercial Court in London, claiming US $100 million pursuant to the Guarantee.
The Board has become aware of facts and matters pertaining to the circumstances surrounding the negotiation and signature of the Agreement (which contains the Guarantee). The Board has taken the advice of counsel which indicates that the Company may have good defences to the claim by the Bank under the Guarantee and that the Agreement may be unenforceable by the Bank against the Company. The ability of the bank to enforce the Agreement and Guarantee against the Company will depend on the full facts, which the Bank will be obliged to disclose if it continues to pursue its claim.|
|Coca Cola is featured in today's ADVFN podcast.
To listen to the podcast click here> http://bit.ly/ADVFN0111
In today's podcast:
- Alan Green CEO of TradersOwn.co.uk will be chatting about European QE and a steady company that pays a dividend, who shares price has trebled in price over the last 5 years. Alan on Twitter is @TradersOwn
- And the micro and macro news including:
LondonMetric Property #LMP
Balfour Beatty #BBY
WS Atkins #ATK
Victoria Oil & Gas #VOG
Rio Tinto #RIO
IG Group #IGG
Friends Life #FLG
William Hill #WMH
Stock Spirits Group #STCK
Centaur Media #CAU
TSB Banking #TSB
Coca-Cola HBC #CCH
Sula Iron & Gold #SULA
Setting up an account on ADVFN is FREE!!! Just CLICK HERE to register.
Every Tuesday is Ten Bagger Tuesday on the podcast. If you know of a stock, whose share price has the potential to increase ten fold, just click the link below.
Ten Bagger Tuesday
(All it involves is filling out a form that will take you around 5 minutes and you don't personally appear on the podcast).
Once a week, on a Friday, I feature a tip from a listener to this podcast, if you'd like to suggest a stock click the link below:
Suggest a stock
(Again all it involves is filling out a form that will take you around 5 minutes and you don't personally appear on the podcast).
You can subscribe to this podcast in iTunes by clicking HERE
To follow me on Twitter click HERE
Setting up an account on ADVFN is FREE!!! Just CLICK HERE to register.
But as a listener to the ADVFN podcast you can take advantage of some exclusive first year discounts on popular subscriptions:
Bronze - £50 (normally £73.82/year)
Silver - £145 (normally £173.71/year)
Level 2 - £350 (normally £472.94/year)
Call 0207 0700 961 and ask for the ADVFN Podcast discount to take advantage of these reduced rates or just CLICK HERE for more information.
Please DO NOT buy any stock recommended in this podcast basely solely on what you hear. The opinions in this podcasts are just that, opinions. Please do you own research before investing.
|5 grand for me - which at the time was a heck of a lot of my pot!|
|Sympathies sparky, me too.|