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
  +0.00p +0.00% 2,529.00p 2,529.00p 2,530.00p - - - 0 05:30:11
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Beverages 5,300.4 390.2 81.0 30.0 9,315.02

Coca Cola HBC AG Share Discussion Threads

Showing 2476 to 2497 of 2500 messages
Chat Pages: 100  99  98  97  96  95  94  93  92  91  90  89  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
15/9/2018
13:34
At this rate we will all be dead and buried before a resolution.
sparky333
04/9/2018
21:21
What I don't entirely understand is why it is moribund. There is actually still a little bit of money left in the company - I think a few years ago Fosset said it was still worth something like 30 or 40p. They could return that if they wanted. Do the Nils still have any involvment of have they just written off their entire money? I effectively have, but I had a lot (for me) in it and would always appreciated even a % in the £ back if there is any...
soggy
27/8/2018
17:25
11 years now and the company hasn't even given results since 2016.What makes me even madder is a debt for several million outstanding to Oiax limited is a company fossett works for or his son works for. How does that work ? WTF !!!
sparky333
10/8/2018
22:14
Is this the same CCH company previously suspended? If so I have not had any communication about it trading again? After such a long time that would be great news. Any communication to you Soggy?
moormoney
10/8/2018
19:55
anyone know why the share price went down today
red5
26/8/2016
20:12
As you say soggy...who knows! See you next year same time same place!! Enjoy the Bank holiday weekend.
moormoney
26/8/2016
11:22
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 goofy.stuff@ntlworld.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...
soggy
11/8/2016
09:53
Solid numbers
philanderer
19/7/2016
13:16
Cazenove: 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. more at.. HTTP://ftalphaville.ft.com/marketslive/2016-07-19/
philanderer
14/5/2016
14:36
Article on ShareProphets covering CCH: hxxp://www.shareprophets.com/views/20736/coca-cola-hbc-a-greek-start-to-the-year Regards Graham
rndm355
14/9/2015
18:18
Soggy 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.
lionelh
12/9/2015
00:10
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...
soggy
10/9/2015
18:20
Soggy/Moor 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.
lionelh
09/9/2015
20:30
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?
moormoney
09/9/2015
18:35
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?
soggy
09/9/2015
17:38
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?
lionelh
08/9/2015
22:31
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. rf.oiax@batelco.com.bh
soggy
08/9/2015
20:31
Hi all, 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. ATB
extrader
08/9/2015
18:06
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.
moormoney
08/9/2015
17:31
Soggy/Moor 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!
lionelh
07/9/2015
18:24
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.
moormoney
07/9/2015
15:28
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?
lionelh
Chat Pages: 100  99  98  97  96  95  94  93  92  91  90  89  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:43 V: D:20180920 07:09:41