Buy
Sell
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Coca-cola Hbc Ag LSE:CCH London Ordinary Share CH0198251305 ORD CHF6.70 (CDI)
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -25.00 -0.93% 2,652.00 2,634.00 2,637.00 2,693.00 2,634.00 2,673.00 1,087,427 16:35:06
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Beverages 5,945.7 559.5 113.4 23.0 9,768

Coca-cola Hbc Share Discussion Threads

Showing 2301 to 2322 of 2500 messages
Chat Pages: 100  99  98  97  96  95  94  93  92  91  90  89  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
24/4/2012
12:54
Received the Oiax Ltd report - I noticed that salaries for the 3 members of staff went up from 100k to 300k, what was the reason for this threefold increase ?
mister md
20/4/2012
13:46
If anyone could post the main bits I'd be grateful as I can't access the links any good news I'm pleased!
moormoney
20/4/2012
12:51
I wrote these off a while ago, seems there's more than meets the eye. Cheers for the updates. Must dig out the share certificate FWIW.
confusedcoalboy
07/4/2012
13:24
Here's the bad news...my OCD software just won't play ball today. Here's the good(ish) news, I've scanned the report in full but it's saved as jpegs. Sorry chaps! It should be visible to all by clicking on this link. (or cutting and pasting) https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9BECddWdnEnVkxXWWFfSjRRcDJBdUJKNlNuZW9iUQ If it doesn't work I'll try again - never used google's "docs" facility so still trying to get it to act as a drop site. (I miss dropio!) The story is more or less told in full in Richard Fossett's report and especially in note 16 to the accounts (jpeg #25) Sorry it's not a doc file I could email you, but it should be legible. I'm away for a week from tomorrow - so I hope that someone will have got some kind of handle on the figs. - and maybe even concluded something nice! Happy EAster one and all - eat your weight in chocolate!
soggy
06/4/2012
22:48
I am not qualified to pass comments on that regarding share value versus cash in the bank but I.m sure many on these boards could. If there is increasing cash in the bank and some form of activity what is preventing a realist so we can have the chance to sell up. It has never been fully explained why the co got into trouble in the middle east and ownership was suddenly passed to Erins brother for one pound! Suspension and a disappearing act followed and complete silence. No wonder Aim directors have a bad reputation! It would be very useful if you could post pages on here plus any contact details as I have got nowhere with my enquiries so again well done soggy.
moormoney
06/4/2012
15:50
I'm not sure quite what to think about the value of our shares (I sank £5k in, a lot less than your 20!). When R. Fossett replied to me last year he reckoned there was around 35p per share in the value of the co. If - and I stress that I really don't know whether it works this way - the cash at bank and in hand has gone up from £2.4m to £6.4m, does that mean the value per share has increased correspondingly??? The accounts also state that during the period the Company cancelled 40,455,039 ord. shares as part of the ongoing reorganisation. But I don't quite understand the nuances of the authorised, the allotted, called up and fully paid shares and the deferred A and deferred B shares. If I get a chance I'll scan a few of the relevant pages and try and post them. Perhaps those of you who can read co. accounts will make more sense of them. Unless some other kind soul can do so.
soggy
06/4/2012
15:05
Thanks soggy as I hold in a nominee ac I do not get any notifications so I am grateful to hear from you that something is still going on. I have over 20k mouldering in this company it would be great if even a fraction came back to me. The co appeared to be doing so well!
moormoney
18/3/2012
23:42
Thanks Soggy--will do.
moormoney
18/3/2012
20:01
For what it's worth, your posting prompted me to look back at the email I received from Richard Fossett - and I was surprised to see it was back in 2010. Since then I have heard nothing and not seen another set of accounts. I assume that nobody else has either?? I have just emailed him and asked for an update on the legal issues and whether there are any plans to relist or to allow shareholders some way to realise their investment. I've also asked if there are more current accounts which I haven't received. If I get an answer I'll let folk know. Perhaps others might like to do likewise. rf.oiax@batelco.com.bh
soggy
18/3/2012
01:03
Still no word from the robbing bar stewards that disappeared into thin air with a chunk of investors money! No way to contact them. Where are the Fsa when you need them! Erin Nil hang your head in shame.
moormoney
14/7/2011
20:18
Still seems as though this company is dead. No communications yet it appears to be still trading under a new name and is still listed on my selftrade holdings. Why? Does anyone have any more info? I cannot at the moment use the losses a in limbo.
moormoney
06/5/2011
20:57
Thanks Extrader just maybe all the problems will be settled soon. I hold in nominee with selftrade so I'm hoping anyone who gets paper communications will post on here if any progress is made. Surely the co is duty bound to report to shareholders as it is still trading as a private co. Erin Nil is on Linkedin I'm told so if anyone is a member please would you ask the right questions!! I'd like to telephone or email if I could find contact details.
moormoney
25/11/2010
17:05
back to patiently waiting.
moormoney
25/11/2010
09:29
Well done, Soggy, good question, good very helpful reply. 35p per share is more than I thought it would be in all honesty (nearly half of what you paid per share, Soggy) though I thought it must be well into double figures; but why is a company with 35p per share in the bank in the position it is in? It is astonishing. If they were relisted again that locked in value would surely make the sure price shoot North?! Come on! You'd be looking at £1 per share surely! There'd be a stampede! NAV increasing all the time as well of course as the business is cash generative. I increasingly feel the bank that put CCH in this position was being opportunistic and very probably wanted to exercise a charge over the business so it could taake it over on the cheap and make an enormous profit for itself. Sharks, the bussness world is full of them. I feel more optimistic today. If the court allowed the bank to get away with this, it would be condoning each shareholder being ripped off to the extent of 35p per share which inequitable and unfair. The law's for everybody and tries to protect all stakeholders, including you, the shareholders, who own the company. There is nothing wrong with this company. It is thriving, it is profitable. It is not in adminstration and can pay all creditors. What reason would there be to wind it up?! Be optimistic, though there are no guarantees as I'm sure your aware. My opinion only again.
lionelh
24/11/2010
22:07
Thanks for sharing soggy-I'm pleased also to have some hope restored. I believe they did try to repay the bank loan but there are prosecutions in Dubai over something to do with a cch employee. I remember finding some details on google but all very vague. NAV of 35p is encouraging and if the co has to remain below the radar a while longer so be it. I hope Mr Fossett will continue to communicate with us. Scrutable held a sizeable chunk of these shares I believe so if anyone sees him posting on other threads direct him this way--he might be able to find out more.
moormoney
24/11/2010
19:38
...well, that was a short wait! I've had a very helpful and kindly reply to my email to Mr. Fossett. Given the imprecise nature of a NAV per share with all the fluctuations possible, and given that any value is academic until the legal situation is sorted, he has informed me that the company's shares should be worth a NAV in the region of 35 pence. Comments are invited... I'll start off: given what has happened, I'm slightly relieved to hear that! I had written off my total investment, but PERHAPS, with time, I might actually get some of it back. Hmmmm....
soggy
24/11/2010
19:05
Yes, you are saying more or less what I said at the time the debacle came to light. I could not believe at the time that (a) "the bank" had the right to put the co. out of business, and (b) I couldn't beleive that any bank would be so stupid as to kill off the only real chance they had of getting their money back. In very short order, however, because of the banking crisis/credit crunch and all the jitters around, they astonishingly did pull the plug - or attempt to. I'm not a businessman, but I simply couldn't understand why, for the sake of calling in a relatively small amount for a bank because of what was in effect (as reported I hasten to add) a relatively small breach of the terms, they called it in. At the time I concluded that there must have been more behind it than that. But in those paincky times, I guess it was a case of "get whatever money you can back in the coffers and to hell with any future profitable returns on it." But as I say, I'm not a businessman, and I guess most of us will never know the full truth of what happened, unless it goes to court and we can be bothered to study every court document and have the savvy to understand it.... In the meantime, we all sit and wait...
soggy
24/11/2010
15:22
Know what you mean, Soggy, the details are painful and all too easy to forget. Now, legally and technically DIB might well be in the right, but given that CCH is profitable and continues to be so could you not argue that their action in trying to pull the rug completely is not proportionate to the breach that in fact occurred. In terms of the law of contract a minor breach entitles the other party to the agreement to damages, not to repudiate the contract completely. I think they are trying it on and hope very much a court would see it like that. What have DIB actually lost? Looks suspiciously like nothing to me. Again the sort of question the law would ask. Again, don't wish to give false hope, that's just the way I see it.
lionelh
24/11/2010
13:49
Thanks for that helpful clarification....it was a long time ago and I think I've just been wiping the painful details from my mind! Cheers.
soggy
22/11/2010
12:31
Don't claim to be an expert again, Soggy, and haven't followed every twist and turn of this protracted saga, but it is not my understanding at all that it is just one deal that has led to the dispute in this case. Though they have comtinued to trade, I believe what happened has affected every single deal the company is involved in. Put very simply, CCH did not have money to finance their business model, so, as is commercially usual, they went to a finance provider, I'm taking it as Dubai Investment Bank (DIB) in this case. Again as I understand it, CCH lent monies to clients medium to long term instead of short term as provided for in their banking agreement, a position protected by a banking covenant which is again a usual position as it is legally enforceable in the law of contract. That breach of a banking covenant and contractual dispute have led to DIB taking the action they have. The credit squeeze led to a large number of banking institutions completely reassessing the risk entailed in their lending practices and particular clients. Many got twitchy, DIB included.
lionelh
20/11/2010
07:20
Thanks for the comments chaps. Lionel, the reason I put the caveat in about value being imprecise was because they have been trading, and the value might be significantly different from the figures in those account. Also, as you point out, any statement of value could then be hedged by pointing out the potential liabilities in the event of the legal wrangle coming to a head. At the time of the debacle I think I posted the point that this one deal which was in dispute wasn't the whole of the company's business, and that in theory we still had all the other deals which we had done and which were ongoing and which should have been bringing in revenue. What I never understood was the relationship between the two parts of the business - the UK and Gmbh sides. Again, from memory, I seem to recall that the bit that was left trading was the rump and the bit that went "out of business" or was in dispute and was liable for the massive loan repayments was the bit that had all the money. If my memory is correct, then what is left will never be brining in the kind of money we all invested for. But it's a long time ago now, I cannot remember all the details, and I have written this off, so, if some day it starts trading, or we get bought out, or there is a distribution of the assets, I'll consider it a little bonus. But I'm not holding my breath! Good to know I'm not the only one who still has this thread on their radar... Anyone else want to say hi!? Come on, who else is reading this?!
soggy
19/11/2010
23:14
I don't think the uk side did stop trading it just dropped out of sight so to speak after the majority of it was sold/transferred to Eren N for $1 if my memory is correct. At the time this was to protect it from the Dubai mess and now it is appearing very succesful. Nobody knew what was going on or understood the reasons but I feel much better waiting for my frozen pot to warm up again!!
moormoney
Chat Pages: 100  99  98  97  96  95  94  93  92  91  90  89  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
CCH
Coca-cola ..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

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

P: V: D:20210620 17:11:32