Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Inveresk Plc LSE:IVS London Ordinary Share GB0004577697 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 1.625p 0.00p 0.00p - - - 0.00 05:00:10
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Forestry & Paper 13.0 -2.2 1.3 1.3 2.31

Inveresk Share Discussion Threads

Showing 1201 to 1223 of 1225 messages
Chat Pages: 49  48  47  46  45  44  43  42  41  40  39  38  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
02/3/2010
14:14
Inveresk plc (Respondent) v Tullis Russel Papermakers Limited (Appellant) (Scotland) in the Supreme Court March 1st and 2nd. See this link - http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/current-cases/CCCaseDetails/case_2009_0172.html
mjcrockett
05/1/2010
09:58
Seen the news ! Inveresk have now been kicked off the stock exchange because of their complete and utter incompetence. They are blaming TR but that's nonsense the Board of Inveresk never admit to anything and its always someone else's fault - the bank , their employees,TR the list is endless. This latest move means that the board now have total control of the Company and its cost them nothing - brilliant. In the meantime the poor shareholders (not just the rich but employees etc) own shares that are effectively worthless. Whilst the board sit on assets worth ? which they can sell when they like and pocket the money. There should be a law against people like that - talk about bankers ! And do you know that every employee who was made redundant have had to take legal action against the Company to get their money.
theoriginalred
10/12/2009
16:44
The mill cat at Inveresk's last papermill has told me that ex employees have had to go to extraordinary lengths to get their redundancy money paid. Actions have included a county court judgement and applying through the Insolvency Service. Unite, the union, may even apply for a winding up order. Can anyone tell me when the restriction on share dealing may be lifted? I want to be out of here!!!
bonnyface
02/12/2009
15:42
Mmmm, see what you mean Red. No accounts lodged for 2008/9 suggests that there's something the Board doesn't want to admit to. But if they're still trading while the company isn't a "going concern" it won't look good on their cv's or sit well with Companies House.
bonnyface
02/12/2009
14:41
Inveresk has large debts which are secured against land assets in England and Scotland. Those assets were worth around £50,000,000 with planning permission and more than covered the debts. However since the crunch their value would have fallen especially as no planning permissions exist on most of the land - see earlier threads above. The current business on its own (ie without the assets) is not sufficient to cover the debt and arguably Inveresk are no longer a going concern. The shares are suspended and although they are hoping to realise in excess of £1,000,000 from the current legal action against TR as with any legal action there are no guaranteed winners. There are 3 executive directors - AW, Jan Bernander who is Swedish and based in Singapore and Gordon Thompson whose future is indeterminate because I understand that he is on sick leave with early stage Parkinson's disease. The directors run the Company as if it were their own and appear to have little or no regard for their shareholders, ex.and current employees. I repeat that without the land assets Inveresk would be bankrupt simply because of the huge debt burden carried by the company.
theoriginalred
01/12/2009
21:09
I'd heard that AW doesn't like to pay his UK taxes, but the "assets" you mention are interesting. And what of the other directors? Tell me more?
bonnyface
30/11/2009
09:22
Likewise AW has a lot of directorships and if Inveresk do go under then he could lose the lot especially if the FSA decide to investigate the goings on at Inveresk and rule that he is not a "fit person" - which he clearly isn't. Everyone's main concern must be the assets because without them Inveresk are nothing and I would not surprised if these have started to "disappear".
theoriginalred
30/11/2009
05:32
Hello TheOriginalRed, Sounds like information from an insider, or at least someone who was inside. Good background information. Thanks. It's interesting to look at all of the companies that are registered to Bedford House at CB7 5BA. Use http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk. Why would anyone need that many inactive companies if it wasn't for the purposes of shuffling money around? If I was an IVS shareholder, especially with the way that the Board has treated its employees, I'd be asking what's going on!
bonnyface
27/11/2009
16:51
Let me put it this way. Judging by the amount of money that they owe I would not be surprised to see Inveresk put into administration sooner than later. They still haven't paid all the outstanding redundancy payments despite having been taken to employment tribunals and had legal judgments made against them. Those that are waiting are currently going via the courts to obtain their money. I think that the directors that are left and in particular a certain AW are just a bunch of crooks who could not care less about their shareholders, employees or ex. employees. I know that T.R. have appealed again and I believe that it will be going to the Supreme Court at some point, but, have not yey heard when the hearing will be. Inveresk are getting desperate !
theoriginalred
27/11/2009
09:41
Anybody any news?? Or ideas what is going to happen?
rickrijsdijk
09/7/2009
08:36
Good news at last and if true Inveresk should no longer be able to plead poverty and pay everyone the money that they are owed. Fingers crossed !
theoriginalred
08/7/2009
21:07
I hear that Tullis Russell have conceded defeat - I do not have any detail. If this is the case we should get news very soon.
mjcrockett
08/7/2009
17:29
Well this isn't the first time that shares have been suspended. What are your views, do you think this is final curtains for them. To be honest with the former employees chasing for their redundancy payments from last year, it would serve them right if their assets are frozen at the up-coming hearing.
zainab1
01/7/2009
08:31
If I were one of the major shareholders I would be asking the board what has happened to the Chinese joint venture (rumour has it that it is dead) and what the position is with regard to the two patents that were going to be commercialised ASAP?
theoriginalred
30/6/2009
08:51
Administration ?
theoriginalred
30/6/2009
08:17
This company has fiddled and floundered for too many years with the same lame excuses, a suspect management and a 'golden egg' that no one seems any nearer to sharing ... The assets are extremely doubtful in this market but the debts are real, the management seem terminally incompetent, the workers disgruntled and bankers nervous - so where is it all going?..
tom.b
30/6/2009
07:47
TheOriginalRed, Thanks for your insight, I was unaware of that additional development. I guess patience will win out in the end. c2i
contrarian2investor
30/6/2009
07:22
Although the main company is in big trouble I still believe that the artists watercolour business (produced on PM2 at St Cuthberts) could be a nice profitable business but it is being held back by the problems of the main company. It is my understanding that the Bernander family are trying to give this business a future and to the extent that at least one of them has moved from Singapore to the UK lock, stock and barrel with the sole purpose of running the PM2 business. However, I understand that their attempts are being hampered by other members of the board and that the losses being suffered by the Company are as high as they were when PM1 was running with a reduced order book. My belief is that the best thing that could happen would be for an ex employee or creditor (and there are some fairly major ones out there) to obtain a winding up order for the Company which would then force the issue and probably allow a full and proper re-organisation of the company so that it can become profitable once more. Contrary to what certain members of the board believe having land assets is not the be all and end all of the Company especially as is presently the case those assets cannot be realised.
theoriginalred
29/6/2009
20:31
TheOriginalRed & Arthur_Lame_Stocks Thanks for your replies. I have had a small holding for a while and just leaving them in the bottom drawer. TOR I agree with your views and do feel that the end of the litigation with TR will be one less distraction for management. As for bleeding the company dry, there are very few companies that are not run for the benefit of the inner circle, blue chips included. The best example I can give is RBS, need I say more. c2i
contrarian2investor
29/6/2009
18:01
I'm not a holder, never have been. I thought it was interesting for the land assets, but as Red has said, they're worth a lot less today than they were and there are still debts and other liabilities to worry about such as the pension funds.
arthur_lame_stocks
29/6/2009
13:13
Be careful ! Although Inveresk maybe asset rich the value of those assets has fallen dramatically and in the case of both main sites (or land banks) it would be very difficult to realise those assets at anything like their old value. Wells presents particular problems because there are a number of other brownfield sites in the area that are waiting to be developed and have just been left. One in particular has already been cleared and has planning permission and yet the original developer has not been able to either proceed with the development or indeed sell the land. Therefore the chances of Inveresk doing so are slim to say the least. As for the Tullis Russell payout this will be around £1,000,000 which will come in very handy to help cover the losses that Inveresk have made so far this year (around £400,000 I'm told) but, also the continuing losses. Something has to give and soon. This company desperately needs a major management shake up because at least some of the board are bleeding the Company dry. They can't even pay ex employees redundancy payments to which they are legally entitled and I can't see them getting away with this appalling behaviour for much longer.
theoriginalred
29/6/2009
11:45
TheOriginalRed, Arthur_Lame_Stocks and other long-term holders, Having read the suspension notice I note with enthusiasm IVS's confidence that matters with regards to the Tullis Russell Papermakers Ltd ("TR") litigation will not only be finally concluded by the end of 2009. But also that they will be successfully concluded in our/their (IVS's)favour. Thus making IVS a very cash rich and asset rich company indeed. The pending conclusion will make a very nice shareholders Christmas present indeed. Does anyone else having any thoughts or opinions on the matter. TIA Yours with integrity c2i
contrarian2investor
19/4/2009
19:15
Certainly if you are prepared to take a small risk the shares are a bargain at the moment. I'm pretty certain that a deal of some sort will be done. The question is what and when. I don't think the cash position is anywhere near as bad as it was because, I'm told they have just given the remaining work force a substantial pay rise (by todays standards) and have reinstated overtime payments. I think the redundancy payment issue typifies the way this company operates and they would see these payments as being of a very low priority and are therefore, only making token payments in order to keep the Union quiet and to keep them out of an employment tribunal.
theoriginalred
Chat Pages: 49  48  47  46  45  44  43  42  41  40  39  38  Older
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:35 V: D:20161204 16:25:36