Eg Solutions Share Discussion Threads

[abrahamtoast] 05/12/2004 20:21

I think I may have been a little misquoted/misunderstood re my last post several months ago. I did not mean to imply that EGS or ESAG had been featured in Private Eye. My intention was to put the idea into the collective minds of those of us who have undoubtedly been badly let down twice - once by EGS and once by ESAG. I am quite sure that Private Eye would express an interest in this situation if it were brought to their attention. I had hoped readers of this board would realise that, and possibly someone with a little clout or credibility may have contacted the magazine.

The matter needs investigation, but ESAG effectively ensured that there would be no investigation by blowing our war chest on an ill-advised and ill-fated "attempt" at obtaining legal advice.

As before, I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

[htrocka] 04/12/2004 07:57

Another couple of minor points...It makes pleasant reading when one hears of one of the worlds largest bondholders, ie Fidelity Hedge Fund, going cap in hand and groveling to the courts that their `portion of the pie`, ie, 8% of the share holding allocated by the My Travel board, be increased to 15%. This action does indicate that no clandestine resolution had been reached prior to administration...and if succsefull bodes well for the hopes of Energis holders.The Energis administration order was used to oust the shareholder. Take a look at British Energy for example.BGY is back onto the markets by mid January and probably valued at around £6bn. Their recon plan, although leaving the existing shareholders with a very small percentage, never the less, still required the approval of all shareholders,In the Energis sceanorio National Grid may well have been the largest share holder and represented the shareholder but the majority shareholding was in the public domain.Imagein if the same scenario was to apply to Cheyls as is happening to British Energy, whereby the company is re-floated for £6bn....sounds good ....but actually it would be total rubbish.The reason being that £6bn minus £1.8bn leaves £4.8bn divided by 7% divided by 600m shares is ...about 50p each...and that would be the end of the story and our involvement in the company and this is, as yet to be voted on by creditors that denied us any voting rights in the first place..The company and creditors had applied to the courts for a Volantary Administration Order in order to reconstruct the company. Cheyls have actually defied the remit of this order, unlike the BGY, Marconi, Telewest recon plans who have retained their original shareholder base, Cheyls have Liquified theirs.Energis shares may well have no fiscal value but this does not give the company the right to Liquify us.....without our permission. One Energis share is worth One vote.The company applied for a Volantary Administration Order.....My argument is that under volantary administratuin order, the shareholders should have been incorporated into the plan but in fact the company have actually Liquified the shareholder.This was not a Liquidation Order, therefore as the company is still operating...a problem exists.Just as in the Fidelity versus MyTravel case,this may take a court appearance to resolve.JackNife stated that we`ve had two years to go to court....that leaves us another possible five years to build up a case. Should the company attempt to float before our case has been heard..a possible injunction may be applied for in order to put our case to the courts. P.S Merry Christmas.

[gerry2] 03/12/2004 14:36

I think jackknife works as the doorman at the Chelys Socal club ?

[efendi] 03/12/2004 13:02

If I had known about the administration hearing and the 'scheme of arrangement' I would have been there !! Dam right, I would have been there !!
After all I went to the Reading fiasco.

As a (significant minority) shareholder I have not, as yet, received ANY communication from anyone advising me what has happened to my company !!

So as a S/M shareholder I will object to the scheme of arrangement if I still can. Anybody like to suggest a firm of lawyers, with the necessary expertise, to approach. And, yes, I am very serious about this as my family has sufficent shares to make it 'viable' and very attractive on a no-win no-fee basis !

So if I fully understand Adrian's excellent post -- Energis the company remains in administration and the 'scheme of arrangement' has not been finalised / agreed (by whoever). So where are Chelys in this. If Energis remains in 'administration' and one assumes should therefore be 'administered' by the administrators -- how come Chelys are running it -- on behalf of the administrators perhaps ?

There is, I think, a hint of a possibility in Adrian's post. That the ISION business may require the whole administration business to be looked at again if funds are ruturned to Energis in administration. Very interesting.

Finally, who is this Jaknife fellow working for ?

Best Wishes
EFENDI

[htrocka] 27/11/2004 22:10

just a couple of other minor points...Energis were given an £800m credit facility of which some £650m had been drawn down....so with £150m `left on the card` so to speak, why were they not allowed to use this facility to pay the now infamous first payment of the covanant?...or did the banks decide to pull the plug and shut them down? The other point being, refering back to the MY-Travel court case,. Mr Justice Mann ruled that bondholders/creditors were not eligible to vote on the reconstruction plan and stated that `It`s quite clear to me that the economic interest of the bondholders in the company...is nil`...in short, as long as the company is `on-going` the bondholders have put their money in...end of story. This does not give them a say or rights in the company. Only AFTER an administration order has been granted the rights of the bondholder/creditor ALTER. The point being that the Tesco contract, that must have taken months of negotiations and gone out to tender, had been signed within DAYS of the Energis admin order, implying that the Tesco contract would be subject to the courts `rubber stamp` therefore the Energis reconstruction plan MUST have been agreed, BEFORE,ie,`done and dusted` PRIOR to obtaining the neccessary administration order. Under Mr Justice Manns ruling, this is illegal, the plan should have been voted on by the shareholders who, UP TO THE POINT of the admin order, were still the LEGAL OWNERS of the company, and therefore the validity of the reconstruction plan MUST be challenged.It was BEYOND the legal remit of the bondholders and creditors to take vote on, participate on the future outcome off the reconstruction plan prior to the administration order.....this authority belonged to ALL the SHAREHOLDERS....( the law does not include the term `stakeholder`....this gives us an in-sight into the managements knowledge and operating skills who were running the company for US.).No sooner than the default on the first covernant payment had been announced, the banks pulled the plug and began proceedings that took months to resolve...that ENDED up in a court order...in all the heat of the exitement of the day what they had ommitted to do was to FIRST obtain the court order THEN instigate proceedings ...this reversal in proceedure could well prove to be their undoing.The bottom line is this.....We all appreciate the hard work and effort that all concerned ,especially Archie Norman, has put into the company to turn it around, without whos help, it would probably have gone under..we don`t deny them any reward for this monumental effort..all we are asking for is a more positive piece of the pie....is that too much to ask?

[htrocka] 27/11/2004 07:40

One of my main objections to the current reconstruction plan is that a powerfull factor in my initial decision to invest in Energis was as direct result of the strong directors share purchase, on the register a few months before the fatefull default of the first covenant payment. The actual `hard cash` paid for these shares was in excess of 6m pounds. These same directors, who through their (mis)management, lead the company to the courts of the administrators,have negotiated themselves an interest in the stock of Cheyls, thereby, in effect, converting their loss in Energis into a piece of the Cheyls pie.If Cheyls retain the Energis name....they will lose nothing. Because the minority shareholder had no representation or took part in the reconstruction plan-had to rely on the majority shareholders representaion,ie, National Grid, who as both creditor as well as shareholder, had their own personal agendas to contend with...with the minority shareholder being the least of their problems......at the time.Any naive enoughto believe that management won`t stitch up share holders...take a quick look at qxl

[finmac] 27/11/2004 00:08

Good evening folks
You lot still here I am amazed, keep up the good work. We have a bigger robber than Energis however in the guise of Gordon Brown, who still has his hands in our pensions funds, extracting you hard earned money, with out you even realising it.
Regards
Finmac

[dirtydennis] 26/11/2004 23:46

sorry forgot the banks and bondholders, silly me, however I was refering to meetings that we the ordinary people might have half a chance of attending - myself being a suplier of paper clips and drawing pins.

[eurofox] 26/11/2004 23:03

Don't worry, the DTI will screw him

[agincourt] 26/11/2004 23:00

Take care.

JakNife is here to screw you. It is what he does for a living. Don't listen to him. He will say whatever it takes to achieve his aims.

[dirtydennis] 26/11/2004 22:25

forgot to ask, am i right about the creditors or not?

[dirtydennis] 26/11/2004 22:24

which court would that be jaknife?

[dirtydennis] 26/11/2004 21:03

if my memory is correct the shares were suspended that morning pending an announcement from the company as opposed to an ivite to any meeting in the courts and even if we had got there in time given the telapathic means we would have had to find out about it in the first place would we have been allowed in to the meeting? it is my understanding that the creditors in this instance were owed money by energis rather than shareholders, is it not a meeting for the milkman the paper clip supplier or the tennis players who had oustanding monies or invoices owing to them at the time of administration rather than shareholders?

anyone?

[eurofox] 26/11/2004 19:36

I think the speed was to protect government networks and the BBC - i still think Adrian should get access to DTI records - and guess what - come Feb 2005 the Freedom of Information Act should allow just what we want

[wayneb] 26/11/2004 19:34

Jack
What chance did we have to get there ,it was all done and dusted in a matter of hours !!!!

[adrian turner] 26/11/2004 17:52

Hello JaKnife,

The scheme of arrangment is the scheme agreed between creditors as to the distributions of the debtor's assets.

When Energis applied to go into adminstration it was on the basis of a proposed scheme that would require approval and is still, as I understand it, awaiting finalisation.

For a number of reasons (primarily, complications cconcerning boldholders and the ISION related German litigation) there have been various extensions of the period of administration. It will be reviewed again early in 2005.

The rank-and-file shareholders have had no say at any stage either in the the decision to go into administration, or the progress of the administration or the proposed final terms. Fortunately, it seems the creditors have not voted down the future contingent interest for shareholders (though I have no doubt that this owes nothing to charity but to good city investor relations).

I am pleased to say that ESAG is now receiving copies of statements filed by the administrators with the court and these are proving most helpful, particularly in following the discussions with interested parties and the unravelling of the ISION affair.

Very best regards,

ADRIAN TURNER

[eurofox] 26/11/2004 11:30

don't post that here - post it on the RSV site where you are loved

[eurofox] 26/11/2004 10:31

from the guy who has now been blown out of the water posting on the Room Service debacle

[htrocka] 26/11/2004 09:47

An interesting scenario has emerged as a result of the `MY Travel` reconstruction plan. The company, with 800m pounds of debt,(larger than Energis) has won a court case forcing its creditorsto swap debt for equity into the existing company-as opposed to taking it over completely through a `shell co`(such as Cheyls). Energis had no small shareholder voice, as in the British Energy debacle, whereby the minority shareholders objections to their plan, increased the threatened 2.5% dilition to 7.5% of the company.Energis shareholders, who at present are guaranteed nothing, should make a concerted attempt to re-vamp the terms of the reconstruction plan before the proposed float whereby it would be too late. Should therebe no joy with this option then the German Deitche Telecom route may be advisable whereas a single objecting shareholder could take the company to court to alter it plan.