Cake Box Share Discussion Threads

[greengiant] 28/3/2007 13:40

Sandbank - Out of interest WHY?

TIA

gg

[sandbank] 28/3/2007 13:25

GG: I am long

[greengiant] 28/3/2007 11:06

PS - Tried to log on to their website - down.

Decision made - keep shorting

gg

[greengiant] 28/3/2007 11:03

Interesting rise today for no apparent reason, does someone know something before results. Not optimistic about this one and have been shorting since 22p.

Do I close my short? Expecting a fundraising announcement with the results.

Decisions Decisions

gg

[blackbear] 27/3/2007 14:22

pathetic volume, very suprised.

[blackbear] 26/3/2007 22:51

RNS Number:7535T
Cashbox PLC
26 March 2007


Cashbox PLC ("Cashbox" or "the Company")

New Loan Facility and Notice of Interim Results


Cashbox is pleased to announce that the Company has secured #2M of debt funding
from the clients of Fairfax I.S. plc, a UK investment bank.

In addition, the Board is considering an equity issuance as part of the long
term financing strategy of the business.

The Company expects to be able to provide further details of the above with the
Company's Interim Results for the 6 month period ended 31 December 2006, which
will be released on Friday 30th March 2007.

[blackbear] 26/3/2007 16:07

Cashbox says ceased talks on possible offers for co

LMAO.....

LONDON (AFX) - Cashbox PLC, the independent supplier and operator of ATMs,
said it has terminated discussions with parties regarding possible offers for
the company.
It said none of the discussions were proceeding as rapidly as it would have
liked and that it was not aware of any potential "bona fide offerors".
On Feb 2, Cashbox said it had received expressions of interest which may
have led to an offer being made to acquire the company.

[blackbear] 21/3/2007 21:10

Ah yes the fall guy...... everyone else is clean RIGHT?

[ron manager] 21/3/2007 17:32

Just in case your reading this Carl, here's a URL that you might find useful;




Cashbox PLC
21 March 2007



Cashbox plc

Directorate Change


Further to the announcement on 13 February 2007, the Board appointed a
Non-Executive Director to complete an investigative review of the circumstances
surrounding the share dealings by Carl Thomas. On 20 March 2007, Carl Thomas was
dismissed without notice as CEO, director and employee of Cashbox plc and all
its subsidiaries with immediate effect after a full disciplinary process. Carl
Thomas has a right to appeal against this decision, however at the present time
no appeal has been received.

Chairman Anthony Sharp has executive responsibility for an interim period until
a new Chief Executive is appointed and a search will commence shortly.



Enquiries:

Cashbox PLC 0870 126 2274
Anthony Sharp, Executive Chairman

Threadneedle Communications 020 7936 9606
Josh Royston/Graham Herring

Seymour Pierce Ltd 020 7107 8000
Jeremy Porter

[blackbear] 15/3/2007 23:58

The Cashbox model relies on the host of the ATM to make it work ie - fill it with cash, we all know what tight cash regimes some of the smaller store outlets run on so i am not surprised to see them at the bottom of the tables.
A bidder at 4 x revenue i think not i remain short.

[badlad21] 15/3/2007 21:30

Hillbrown - you are probably right that the deal is still on. In my view the only people who could be thinking about buying this lot is Note Machine. It would add to their portfolio of poor performing sites!

See web site Notemachine.com - they have made two acquistions this year and seem to be well funded. Questions and problems may arise when people start asking why they have bought companies at the bottom end of the market. My access to the LINK stats show that Note Machine, Scot Tod,TRM and Cashbox are the 4 worst IADs (Independent ATM Deployers) for transactions. The big boys like Cardpoint,Travelex and Bank Machine have 5 x more transactions that some of these!

[hillbrown] 11/3/2007 17:52

Having announced that they were in discussions if they have now finished discussions they would have to publish a termination of discussions statement.
As that has not happened despite the bad publicity its safe to assume that the deal is going ahead. The fundementals have not changed but if I was the buyer I would certainly be trying to get the price reduced. I still expect it to happen probably in about 6-8 weeks time after full due diligence, which may have started.

[blackbear] 09/3/2007 16:33

Another 2p rise or so would be very welcome on this lame deal announced yesterday.

[blackbear] 05/3/2007 16:36

Has anyone heard anymore about the bid approach, whats the chances of it being positive now Carl Thomas's credibility is so questionable, well he was a net seller after all.

Bb.

[eacn] 25/2/2007 23:14

In the industry no-one I have met can understand the cashbox business model.

As the ATM Kid has pointed out, Cashbox are prepared to take on contracts on terms that no-one else can make work.

The November judgement and the judgement before that are damning. Carl Thomas' share dealing antics only seek to reinforce the views expressed in these judgements.

The current market cap looks unsustainable. If the industry is right then Cashbox is headed for the buffers.

If so questions will no doubt be asked about the non-executive supervision.

[blackbear] 25/2/2007 21:51

Unreal, you cannot trust advisers/brokers whos companies are actually trading stock on a regular basis, it's only when in these bid situations that the traders are exposed under rules, seymour pierce has been trading CBOX almost daily, they picked up 300k at 10p last week.


Bb.

[pugugly] 25/2/2007 15:15

The ATM Kid - 25 Feb'07 - 09:36 - 63 of 65 - Ex Sunday Times.


"Shareholders in Cashbox were told nothing of the judgment, although Hanco was asking for an interim award of £2m plus costs that could approach £1m - no small sum for a company of Cashbox's size. Company chairman Anthony Sharp said the decision to make no announcement last November was on the advice of Cashbox's adviser Seymour Pierce."

I am confused. Anyone any ideas (if the above extract is true) why share price would have advised against making an announcement about the judgement, and if so under which section of the FSA Code (presumeably) would they have been so advising.

[dvda] 25/2/2007 10:43

It's a classic - you couldn't make it up.

[the atm kid] 25/2/2007 09:36

This article in todays Sunday Times even mentions the flash cars as I did a few weeks ago. When it all goes under I'll put a small offer in for it - the wife could have it ! He's obviously completely skint as he's mortgaged up to the hilt according to this article.


From The Sunday TimesFebruary 25, 2007

Cashbox and a strange case of business suicide
Ben Laurance reports on a web of deceit that has left 'the world's leading cash machine supplier' in turmoil
CARL THOMAS's mistake was to place a modest order for business cards.

The date was May 19, 2003, and Thomas was working as the £120,000-a-year corporate sales director of Hanco, a company providing stand-alone cash machines - automatic teller machines (ATMs) to give them their proper title.

But Thomas had ambitions of running his own company. So he secretly plotted to establish his own firm, Cashbox, that would place ATMs in pubs, clubs, off-licences and shops, charging customers £1.50 a time to withdraw cash on the spot rather than from a bank where they can do it free.

Now, almost four years later, Cashbox is up and running and quoted on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM). But that fateful decision four years ago to order business cards has come back to haunt Thomas.

The High Court has ruled that it proved Thomas was planning to set up Cashbox and take a clutch of colleagues with him while he was still at Hanco and when he should still have been looking after Hanco's interests. His behaviour, according to the judgment, was "deceitful and wrong". Thomas and Cashbox's largest shareholder now face a claim from Hanco for £2m.

To add to his discomfort, Thomas, 42, has been suspended from his job as chief executive for indulging in a series of trades in the company's shares in the past two months. Without telling any of his fellow directors, he pocketed nearly £300,000 by selling part of his stake in the company - just as it was being lined up as a bid target.

Cashbox makes the immodest claim that it is "the world's leading cash machine supplier". Its board includes at least two big names - John Maples, a former Tory Treasury minister, and Robin Saunders, one-time queen of private equity - that should give it some weight.

But even by the standards of some of the racier companies on the lightly regulated AIM market, the saga of Cashbox is raising eyebrows.

At the heart of the legal dispute between Hanco and Cashbox is a contract with the off-licence chain Threshers.

By 2003, Hanco already had 100 cash machines installed in branches of Threshers. But Threshers was interested in having 500 more. Thomas was involved in negotiations for Hanco; but at the same time he was setting up his own business to try to clinch the Threshers contract.

A High Court judgment delivered last year said: "It is clear that from February and March 2003, Mr Thomas was investigating premises, consulting design consultants and registered the relevant domain name in respect of a proposed new business."

By May 2003 he was "taking advice as to the setting up of a company and as to procuring investment via an Enterprise Investment Scheme".

And that month Thomas gave details to a design company for business cards that were to bear the names of Hanco colleagues he intended to take with him to his new business.

It was this crucial piece of evidence that helped to persuade the High Court that Thomas had acted deceitfully.

In June 2003 Cashbox was formally incorporated. Thomas's wife, Catriona, became company secretary. His younger brother Matthew was also a founder. Thomas resigned from Hanco 10 days later.

Cashbox won the Threshers contract, and that became the bedrock on which the company grew. It clinched deals with Greene King, Scottish & Newcas-tle, Texaco and the convenience-store chain Nisa Today's.

But Hanco sued Thomas and Cashbox. It claimed an interim award of £2m damages for breach of contract and said, among other things, that Cashbox had been involved in "unlawful interference with Hanco's economic interests".

With the lawsuit under way, Hanco was taken over by Royal Bank of Scotland in 2004 for about £80m.

But the Hanco claim did not stop Cashbox from floating on AIM last spring with a market value of £12.2m. The company boasted that by the end of 2005 it had 845 machines installed. A further 596 were "anticipated" and there were 5,510 "potential further ATM installations".

The placing document stretched to 66 pages. And on page 64, it gave an outline of the action being brought by Hanco.

Thomas and Cashbox chairman Anthony Sharp - the biggest investor in Cashbox - together gave an indemnity. They said that they would foot the bill if Cashbox were found liable in the Hanco case. And the placing document said it was planned that the two men's indemnity would be replaced by a new indemnity, this time from an offshore company, KKR Investment Management, in which Sharp was a shareholder, with a maximum liability of £1.5m.

The City liked the look of Cashbox. The shares were placed at 20p, and within a month had jumped to 35p.

Last summer the company announced it had installed its 1,000th ATM and won a new contract with Wiltshire brewer Wadworth to place machines in its managed pubs.

The Hanco litigation was forgotten. All seemed set fair. Cashbox was winning new work and visitors to its head office in Hook, Hampshire, were treated to the sight of a line of flashy cars outside, suggesting life was treating executives well.

But the first sign of trouble emerged last September. Analysts were primed to expect results on September 25; but the night before, word came from Cashbox that publication of the results - the first since Cashbox's AIM debut - had to be delayed.

According to one well-placed source, the hold-up was because of problems identified by the auditors, BDO Stoy Hayward. The auditors declined to comment.

On the afternoon of the 25th, Cashbox said the results would come out four days later. When they appeared, the figures showed a loss for the year to June of £3.5m on sales of £3.2m. Despite optimistic noises from Sharp - "our business, at least, is in a rapid-growth mode," he said - the shares fell by a third.

The Hanco court hearing had already come and gone, but no public mention was made of it. And in November judgment in the case was handed down.

For Thomas and Cashbox it made uncomfortable reading. Regarding the Threshers deal, the judgment said: "Any ordinary person would regard it as deceitful to go behind one's employer's back to bid for the same contract that one was employed to procure for the employer. Likewise, as regards Cashbox, any ordinary person would regard it as obviously wrong and dishonest to assist in such a process."

Thomas's behaviour had been "simply dishonest".

Some of Thomas's evidence was "wholly incredible and completely implausible". The judgment went on: "It is the plainest evidence that Mr Thomas and, by him, Cashbox knew that what they had done was deceitful and wrong."

Shareholders in Cashbox were told nothing of the judgment, although Hanco was asking for an interim award of £2m plus costs that could approach £1m - no small sum for a company of Cashbox's size. Company chairman Anthony Sharp said the decision to make no announcement last November was on the advice of Cashbox's adviser Seymour Pierce.

Only after the case was mentioned in a newspaper report ear-lier this month did Cashbox acknowledge the judgment and say it would be appealing. Last week Cashbox was refused leave to appeal, though it can still ask a judge for the right to make a further challenge.

Cashbox also admitted that the hoped-for indemnity from KKR Investment Management, referred to in the placing document 11 months ago, had not been secured.

Sharp predicted last week that even if Thomas and Cashbox lost the case, damages would run only to hundreds of thousands of pounds rather than millions.

He accused Hanco and its parent RBS of hounding Cashbox through the courts. "I think that they are rather tired of us," he said. "Because Cashbox is winning business that Hanco wants."

Then there is the case of Carl Thomas's share dealings.

Three weeks ago, following a rise in the company's share price, Cashbox said it had "received expressions of interest" from potential bidders.

Ten days later it said that Thomas had been suspended as a director after it emerged he had been trading his own shares in Cashbox over the previous five weeks.

In a number of instances he had bought and sold shares on the same day; and some sales followed the announcement of bid interest. The dealings netted him nearly £300,000.

Cashbox's board members had hoped to extract an explanation from Thomas at a meeting early last week. No announcement has been made and Thomas has not returned phone calls from The Sunday Times.

Sharp said: "We have to try to figure out what the man was thinking. He knew the rules. It is business suicide. He says he was short of cash. He had spent the money before he had got it." Cashbox's lawers have now received a statement from Thomas, Sharp added.

Land Registry records show that in May last year, Thomas and his wife owed nearly £350,000 on their house. A further loan of £150,000 was taken out. They had bought the house for £365,000 in 2000.

Sharp said it was the stockbroker Seymour Pierce that alerted him to Thomas's share dealings. The decision to suspend Thomas was taken at a board meeting held by conference call. Thomas was asked his reasons for selling shares, "and he didn't have a clear answer".

Sharp will not say exactly when it became clear to him - or to other directors including Thomas - that there might be bids in the offing. The announcement of takeover interest was made as soon as possible, he said.

Seymour Pierce declined to comment. RBS said that it could not comment while litigation continued.

[theband] 23/2/2007 15:01

No it was CT selling shares.

[prmoldoaks] 23/2/2007 13:50

so this won't cost the compay directly, and we can see why AS was selling shares, to raise funds to pay the interim payment. Things start to fall into place a little more clearly.

[theband] 23/2/2007 13:21

Cashbox Statement re. Press Comment tb...( ISSUED FEB 8TH )


RNS Number:9883Q
Cashbox PLC
08 February 2007


Cashbox plc ("the Company")

Statement re Press Comment


It should be noted that as set out in the Company's Admission Document dated 24
March 2006, an unlimited indemnity, in favour of the Company and ATM, has been
given by Anthony Sharp, Chairman, and Carl Thomas. The further indemnity from
KKR Investment Management SA has not yet been put in place.




This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange

END
SPCUUUCGPUPMGRR

[papalpower] 23/2/2007 12:40

Cashbox PLC
23 February 2007


Cashbox plc (the 'Company')

Further re Litigation

Further to the announcement made on 8 February 2007 which refers to the
indemnity in favour of the Company and Cashbox ATM Systems Limited ('ATM'), the
Company's subsidiary, at a Court hearing on 21 February 2007 concerning the
ongoing litigation between, inter alia, ATM and Hanco ATM Systems Limited
('Hanco'), the Court ordered that:

1. ATM and Carl Thomas pay Hanco's costs of the action so far as they
relate to ATM and Carl Thomas (as opposed to the other Defendants), limited to
Hanco's costs of the action in respect of those claims upon which it succeeded
on its application for summary judgment. Such costs are to be paid on the
standard basis and are to be subject to a detailed assessment if not agreed.

2. ATM and Carl Thomas pay 60% of Hanco's costs of the summary judgment
application to be paid on the standard basis and to be subject to a detailed
assessment if not agreed. The question of the timing of any detailed assessment
in relation to these costs and those referred to above is to be the subject of
further order.

3. ATM and Carl Thomas make a payment of £150,000 to Hanco on account of
the costs which have been ordered to be paid by them by no later than 4 April
2007.

Adjudication will be made regarding the remainder of the costs of the action at
a later date.

ATM and Carl Thomas were refused permission to appeal against the summary
judgment ruling by the Master but intend to renew their application to a High
Court Judge. In the event that permission is granted and any appeal is
successful then they will apply to have the above costs orders set aside.

Hanco's application for an interim payment (in relation to quantum) was
adjourned to a further hearing.

ATM and Mr. Thomas's position remains that Hanco would not be entitled to
anything other than nominal recovery because (i) Hanco would not have secured
Phase II of the Threshers contract in any event; and (ii) Phase II of the
Threshers contract was not profitable for ATM.