Eg Solutions Share Discussion Threads

[adrian turner] 06/5/2004 19:20

Greetings again to you JakNife,

I was making the incidental point that, while £560m was the face value of these bonds, the actual holders at the time of administration may well have picked them up for considerably less. If that is right, if they get £560m back when the company is sold or floated they will have made a profit.

Of course, I accept that the original bondhodlers would have paid the full face value.

Chelys appears to be under very good management. In due course, I expect the company to be worth enough for the banks to recoup their money and the bondholders to do well from their equity swap. I expect this to happen well within the 7 year period, thus enabling the deferred consideration for the former shareholders to arise.

It has been most interesting to have these further exchanges with you.

Very best regards,

ADRIAN TURNER

[eurofox] 06/5/2004 17:54

look to why the DTI couldn't let this fail, even if the shareholders got screwed, because the conseqences - for the BBC, Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the negotiation of the contract for the Government Secure Network (GSI) over a period of time - would have been catastrophic

[adrian turner] 06/5/2004 17:50

Hello again JakNife,

The bondholder debt has not been written off but exchanged for equity.(Incidentally, was £560m its face value or the amount the holders actually paid for these bonds?)

Of course, you are right about the injection of working capital and the interest moratorium. Energis had to be reinvigorated after it had been a lame duck for so many months, and given time and resources to achieve its real potential.

The banks through Chelys inherited a worse mess than they had expected (its seems that it was not only Energis shareholders that were in the dark as to the true state of affairs). Nevertheless, they have won many major contracts - though the full benefits may not yet have filtered through - and I, for one, expect that the banks will get every penny back in the end.

I think the Banks made the right decision and they know it. DO you agree?

ADRIAN TURNER

[adrian turner] 06/5/2004 14:34

JakNife,

I bought my shares after Energis bought ISION. It was clear to everyone by then that Energis had paid far too much for ISION, but some of us thought that a turnaround might still be achieved. The Banks were obviously of the same view, and I am delighted that Chelys is proving them right.

I do not accept that it should not have been clear to the Board at the time of the purchase that it was grossly overpaying for ISION, but it will be interesting to see what the Administrators have said about that.

[gerry2] 06/5/2004 14:32

JK
If it was "blindingly obvious" as you put it ?

Explain this :-

[adrian turner] 06/5/2004 14:00

Hello again JakNife,

Dot com mania was undoubtedly a strong factor in the gross over-valuation of Energis as a £10b company. Incidentally, I bought at a late stage in the day.

The question is, what did the directors know at the time, or what should have been apparent to them? Shareholders and investors, however thorough their research, cannot hope to be in the same knowledge and judgment position as the Board. Phrases like 'commercial in condidence' would be devoid of any meaning if everything were as transparent and there to see as you seem to be claiming.

I am not making 'snide insinuations'; I am asserting that the sum of all the matters that we already know is enough to provide reasonable grounds to suspect mismanagement and that shareholders should, at least, have access to the adminsitrators' report on the conduct of directors. If they acted reasonably and transparently they could have no cause for concern.

ADRIAN TURNER

[adrian turner] 06/5/2004 13:06

Good afternoon JakNife,

If it was as simple as you claim it would be difficult to find any cause for complaint against the Board: they had a plan, it was transparent, they pursued it as they said they would, it turned out to be flawed, once this was clear they were upfront with the markets and their creditors and sought to limit the latter's losses.

However, this was a meteoric corporate rise followed by an even more spectacular descent. It is clear that some acquisitions, especially ISION, were bought far too expensively and there are now, of course, allegations of fraud against those who sold ISION to Energis. What was the real reason for Mike Grabiner's departure in 2000, etc? We know the adminsitrators have made strong criticisms of some directors (though we do not presently know whom).

Of course, we all have 20-20 vision in hindsight. Nobody is going to judge the directors according to a counsel perfection, but according to whether to what was known, or should have been blindingly obvious, at the time, and whether they kept shareholders properly informed.

Shareholders (shortly to be become 'ex shareholders') are now mainly interested in the deferred consideration, but people who lost heavily in Energis are, I think, at least entitled to answers to their reasonable questions.

ADRIAN TURNER

[robby george] 06/5/2004 10:22

>FINMAC

LOL !

Regards

I'M A FOX

;-

[finmac] 06/5/2004 10:16

jacknife
Did Energis do anything wrong in your eyes, it appears not by the way you defend them, I have not seen such loyalty since my old dog died.
Regards
Finmac

[adrian turner] 04/5/2004 13:36

Farsight,

I am sorry. I did not realise that you were referring to this allegation against JakNife. Yes, I was aware of it.

Frankly, I do not care who JakNife works for. Anyone is entitled to express his views, whether he is paid to hold them or not.

If my recent exchanges with JakNife have achieved anything they have, at least, seen a modest improvement in his tone. The remarks have become a little bit less disparaging and personal. I hope this trend continues. Then I, for one, shall be pleased to continue the debate.

ADRIAN TURNER

[farsight] 04/5/2004 13:29

Connection to UBS?

[adrian turner] 04/5/2004 13:11

Good afternoon JakNife,

The fact is that Energis was capable of being viable or the banks would not have chosen to take it over.

The administrators' report has been with the DTI for some time. My knowledge of its criticisms comes from a respected reporter who was allowed access to it. He had no axe to grind. I am confident that, in due course, its content will become public. If this shows any impropriety will you still continue to blame shareholders and exonerate the directors? One second thoughts, since your answer will obviously be 'yes' you need not bother to give it.


Good afternoon also to you, Agincourt,

I tried the link. Energis shares are indeed worthless, save for the deferred consideration which may or may not have a value. Time (and pressure) will tell.

I am afraid I cannot help regarding UBS. Perhaps somebody else can suggest a connection.

ADRIAN TURNER

[agincourt] 04/5/2004 12:38

Adrian


What have UBS got to do with this?

[agincourt] 04/5/2004 12:36

adrian


Here is an very interesting link to the Energis Action Group website.

I wonder why it is there.

[adrian turner] 04/5/2004 11:18

Good morning JakNife,

I do not instinctively try to blame others, and I have used the word 'if' throughout in relation to possible incompetence by Energis directors.

The point is that we continue to be denied access to the administrators' report, though we have been told that it is highly critical of some directors. We also know (from Chelys) that some dubious accounting practices were used.

If I back the wrong horse I accept I should lose my bet. If, however, I was given false information about its form, its rider, the competition it would be facing, etc, by people that had a duty to give accurate information I would be entitled to complain. Or do you disagree even with that?

I mentioned Shell because it is but one example of shareholders losing money, not through poor judgment on their part but due to deliberate misinformation. Shareholders are as well informed as the information they are given.

I am confident that the relevant information will appear, by one means or another. That will be the time to resolve questions of blame.

ADRIAN TURNER