We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biofuels | BFC | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 1.50 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.50 | 1.50 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 28/12/2007 11:24 by sofa spud Why has BFC reappeared in my ADVFN monitor list on 28/12/07? |
Posted at 03/12/2007 19:49 by ecks Jabuk thanks, you're a gent but don't feel you have to leave the case unmolested. I think Frankie could doo with a bottle today - not a good day for D1. If you just save a couple of bottles for us to drink when you're in Devon that would be grand.There will be more BFC Gold when the mood takes me to pan for it - the times we could benefit from a search facility on the BBs. |
Posted at 31/7/2007 22:33 by murillo Section 428 et seq. of the Companies Act 1985 provides that someone who has (1) made a takeover offer for all the shares of another company and (2) acquired 90% or more thereof may in certain circumstances buy out the other 10% compulsorily on the same terms. This does not apply here. Barclays (or rather its subsidiary) has not made an offer for "all the shares", but instead taken a lot of shares in consideration of writing off a lot of debt.Further, the shares acquired by Barclays are not in Biofuels Corporation, the quoted PLC ("BFC", soon to be the unquoted private company Earls Nook Limited) but in the erstwhile subsidiary Biofuels Corporation Trading Limited ("Trading"). Even if the outstanding 6% of Trading were to be acquired by Barclays, this would not take out shareholders in BFC, but BFC itself. Post-restructuring, Trading will still have net liabilities of c. £20m. The assets would have to be sold for £60m+ (very unlikely) to generate any return for BFC, let alone the shareholders thereof. |
Posted at 24/7/2007 11:48 by magpie59 Well its been an interesting 12 months watching this stock and finally making some money.I told people last August, when the share price was 95p, it was bust, as did several others, but many more continued to believe in BFC, for reasons I still don't understand. I should have made a mint but failed to back my convictions with money, only finally making £30K in the last month or so. I'm not a serial shorter, having only ever shorted this and Eurotunnel and I have mixed feelings about the activity. Those that regard all shorting as an evil pursuit are I believe misguided. I agree that it is wrong to attack and undermine a potentially sound company and thwart their ability to raise capital and recover. But when you have blatant dead ducks like BFC and ETL, then shorting them is a legitimate pursuit in my view. I've enjoyed my time on here, interesting jousting and debate, good humour and vitriol all seen at one time or the other. This though is my final BFC BB post. Good luck to all and I hope any who have lost (especially nfranks and Ricky Jackson)regain their money elsewhere. It's been emotional! |
Posted at 20/7/2007 17:34 by paul e Delphiman - I think you would be better sticking it in premium bonds or on the lottery.As a minority shareholder BFC will have no say in BFCT's strategy, I strongly suggest you read the company's announcement wrt the D4E and subsequent delisting of BFC (if you haven't already) before buying.... |
Posted at 28/6/2007 16:54 by magpie59 I couldn't quite work out what is happening to the remaining £60m debt if Barclays is only forgiving £40m.I've now been through the whole thing, yet again and I believe I've got it now. Some facts: 1 The "Existing Debt" lies with BFT not BFC. 2 Only £40m of that is being forgiven in exchange for the Barclays wholly owned Newco gaining a 94% stake in BFT. 3 BFC is being released from X-gurantees, which means BFC is in no way responsible for the remaining BFT debt of £60m. This is important and the bit I didn't get but do now. The current 100% of shares in BFC will remain just that, the 100% owners of BFC. But BFC will only own 6% of BFT, to whom all the assets of BFC are being transferred. The removal of the X-guarantee means BFC will become debt free. However, the remaining £60m debt will still be in BFT, but since Newco own 94% of BFT and BFC own 6% of BFT, then effectively Barclays own 94% of their own debt and indirectly BFC own 6% of the £60m debt, but only indirectly through their 6% stake in BFT. So the "thing" (i.e BFC) that shareholders have a stake in has lost all of its debt, but indirectly, BFC shareholders are still responsible for £3.6m of debt, calculated as 6% of £60m. Having said that they also own 6% of the assets of BFT, maybe 6% 0f £50m, say £3.0m. BFT are still a technically insolvent company then. So the £60m debt hasn't disappeared, its just that it is entirely in the hands of BFT. 4 BFC is relieving BFT of the responsibility to pay the "Inter-company loan". We don't know what this amounts to but I think insignificant as the £100m external debt definitely lies in BFT. Also, it states the only asset of BFC will be the investment in BFT plus the rights to any Energea claim. I think this inter-company debt disappears inthe process of transferring assets to BFT. 5 BFT must pay BFC annually the admin costs relating to company formalities. This has been written in since the new structure requires BFC to continue as the vehicle for the existing 49m shares in it to survive, and yet it has no income whatsoever to even cover a £20 Companies Filing Fee. Hence this requires BFT to sub BFC. 6 BFT must also pay BFC costs relating to any Energea claim, but...........critic 7 There will be no public market for the 49m shares in BFC. This is critical. Those 49m shares aren't going anywhere. They will all still be in place post restructure. It's just they'll be with a private company with no income. Where does this leave shareholders going forward? Their only chance of value is if Barclays/Newco either elect for BFT to pay a dividend or if they sell BFT. In either case the 49m BFC shareholders will only get 6% of any distribution by BFT. I estimate BFT to have a negative balance sheet to the tune of around £15-£30m. It would be a brave man who would project profits in the next five years sufficient to wipe that out and build up reserves sufficient to make Barclays confident enough to allow a dividend be paid by BFT. I would rule out a dividend from BFT then, in the very long term, and certainly not before Barcalys have their £60m back. In summary then, I believe the only chance of BFC shareholders getting anything once the company delists is if BFT is one day sold. At 1p per each currently traded share the collective worth of the 49m shares is £490K. To just get that value, BFT would have to be sold for £8.167m (£8.167m x 6% = £490K). So roughly speaking, each penny perceived value of the share, needs £8m worth of future BFT sales consideration. In other words, a decision to not sell now at 4.25p is a gamle that BFT may one day be sold for at least £34m. |
Posted at 26/6/2007 14:36 by magpie59 Paul - grey area. They first refer to £40m but later say:"the release by the Company of Biofuels Trading from the obligation to repay the Inter-company Loan" I've read the whole thing more thoroughly now. Basically we will end up with a de-listed private company, the current BFC. BFC will have no trading assets, just a 6% stake in BFT (Biofuels Trading), with Newco (Barclays) holding 94% in BFT. Existing shareholders won't even have a direct stake in BFT, just ownership of BFC which will own 6% of BFT. The quoted statement above says that BFC will release BFT from repaying the inter-company loan, but we don't know what that is. My valuation assumed £97m was being written off but I am doubtful now and think it may be only £40m. If it is only £40m being forgiven then the current shares have a negative "value" not 3.3p. I am unclear. Does BFC forgiving a BFT debt mean Barclays are writing off the full £97m? I don't know, but I do know BFC shares are worth between zilch and 3.3p. |
Posted at 06/6/2007 23:47 by jonck But sadly not BFC with it's massive debts. How can you try and promote BFC in all honesty when the writing on the wall looks very very grim.Be honest, post some figures that can back up that BFC will recover and how the institutions and banks are going to engineer a recovery for BFC. |
Posted at 04/6/2007 13:37 by hercy Bio fuels as a product agreed may well be a good earner in the future. I am sorry to say though BFC as a company will not survive in its current form to benefit from any EU law or otherwise.Parttime trader your EU posts are great but BFC will not survive long enough to see this. RIP BFC, roll on BFC markII |
Posted at 28/3/2007 12:53 by ricky jackson Wcjan25,"actually surely the worst case for barclays is to extend even more credit to bfc and then see further losses if the hoped for turned around in profitability and the hoped for improvement in the dud plant doesn't happen options are: 1. d4e 2. bankruptcy & sell the assets 3. finance bfc more d4e is the obvious solution for them, as they would then hope the capital appreciates IF bfc solve their issues" I agree that your 1,2 & 3 are the options available to Barclays, but I don't agree with your conclusion that 1. is the obvious solution, nor do I agree that the plant is a 'dud'. To take the last point first, the current problem with the plant is not to do with its main source of revenue; the biodiesel production system, but rather with the secondary glycerine refining system. Glycerine represents approximately 7% of the revenue-earning capacity of the plant, the remaning 93% being biodiesel. The problems with the biodiesel production system were solved some time ago. As for Barclays' options, declaring BFC bankrupt will cost Barclays around £60M - £70M, assuming they can sell the plant for around £30M - £40M. A debt-for-equity swap will cost Barclays around £50M - £60M, with the same assumption and with a chance of recovering their money over the longer term. Financing BFC further, but without a debt-for-equity swap will cost Barclays nothing in the short term in terms of a paper loss, but may cost them £100M+ in the longer term if BFC fail to deliver. On the other hand, if BFC succeed, as they almost certainly will if oil prices continue to rise, feedstock prices continue to fall, mandation comes into force in the UK in 2008 and market forces eventually make biodiesel production viable, then Barclays' best option would be to continue to finance BFC. If these things happen, then BFC will not only be able to pay Barclays' interest and fees, but will also be able to repay the principal over time. And that's exactly what Barclays are in business to do - lend money with a view to having it repaid over time with interest. They will only take a loss-making option if there is clearly no hope of success. In this case, it is not clear that there is no hope of success, nor is it clear that success is assured. In summary, this is not a clear-cut decision for Barclays. It all depends on how they assess the probabilities of each of the above happening. If their assessment is that BFC, given sufficient financing, are likely to flourish in the long-term, then it is clearly in Barclays' best interest to provide that financing, rather than to force a debt-for-equity swap. I'm not saying that this is what they'll decide and that they won't eventually force a dfe; I'm simply saying that, at the present time, it's far from the open-and-shut case that you're implying it is. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
