Enables IT Share Discussion Threads

[viateluk] 22/8/2009 20:16

As articulate as ever Andre.....and spot on.

[andre] 22/8/2009 19:55

It is like this.

When they come back from the suspension with a new name. They will issue more shares for the private investor to buy. Money from which will be used to pay excessive salaries for underperforming directors who then lend money to the company in exchange for high interest payments. Then the loans get converted into more shares increasing their %'s again and reducing the value of the PI's shares again. It is called a money go round. Unfortunately it always ends up in the same place. WH Ireland say that it is in the interests of the shareholders. They seem to omit to mention that they mean just around 3 of them.

It is a private club, you cannot join, only pay membership fees for no benefits. Other than the 'potential' and big name agreements that they sign but which never seem to quite pay off, obviously. It takes special directors to lose £1.5M on sales of the same. It is quite a talent.

Watch this space.

All IMHO of course.

[ghtt] 22/8/2009 19:21

But at the heart of this is still a minnow of a company that lost £1.5m on £1.5m of sales. I just don't see what was worth saving......

[andre] 21/8/2009 23:35

I just read back a few articles. Everyone must draw their own conclusions.

Incidentally, watch now as the problems BP are having in Libya disappear now that the Lockerbie bomber is free.

Low moral standards seem to be the order of the day.

[viateluk] 21/8/2009 23:13

Your extrapolations appear logical, if not sound to me Andre and I bow to your obvious superior understanding of these things.

If I have understood correctly, the same bunch who owned a huge slice of equity of an insolvent enterprise have effectively off loaded all the debt into administration whilst simultaneously transferring all the assets into another body that is 100% owned by them enabling them to continue trading within a legally constituted body with the existing customer base of a company that is no longer responsible for its debts.

Have I read this correctly? If so, surely this totally unethical and immoral practice should be tested in a court of law. I might be prepared to throw a contribution into the hat for the legal fees.

[andre] 21/8/2009 20:21

I think I have to stop doing the research here. As it makes for torrid reading.

Belgravia Homes Limited is a company controlled by Melvin Lawson, Stuart Krell and Stross Financial owned by non other than Ralph Michael Stross.

On 28th May 2009 Eagle Eye HOLDINGS (note) received a loan of £1.2M from RBS guaranteed by Terry Krell who paid in the money to RBS. The loan was repayable to Krell on 01/06/10.

The same date Belgravia Homes Ltd. made available £250K (£750K aggregate) to EIH. This is also repayable on 01/06/2010.

Earlier Eagle Eye LEASING received a loan from Belgravia on 11/02/08 of £600K secured on the leasebook. This was due for repayment 30/11/09 or by 'company reorganisation'. Loans were converted to equity in May 2008 leaving a controlling interest in EIH to these shareholders.

Surprisingly now, if you extrapolate this, the shareholders who supported the recent administration of EIT (owned by EIH) and subsequent purchase of the assets (but not the liabilities) by Eagle Eye LEASING (owned wholly by EIH) were these same shareholders.

So EI Holdings still owes the loans (some or all at 12% interest) to the very people/companies that supported the writing off of the debt which would benefit... erm....

I am therefore thinking that EIH is now in a much better position to repay loans now that its balance sheet has lost the liabilities of EIT.

Now I gleaned all this from a few minutes on the Internet. All of it was read on other web-pages and may contain errors (although I don't think so). The extrapolation and summary is simply my own humble opinion and you should do your own research.

Surely non of this will have been planned in advance or that might have broken some rules/laws but I cannot see any. And anyway, all of this was passed by WH Ireland - so it must be OK, must it not?

[andre] 21/8/2009 19:02

Thanks viateluk,

I think your post says it all.

Might be a good idea for the private shareholders to write a nice letter thanking these gentlemen for looking after their interests and your money. You could also deliver it in person. I am sure they would be delighted to meet those who finance their standards of living.

I wonder who the directors of Belgravia Homes are too?

[viateluk] 21/8/2009 14:42

Here go Andre...I won't say what I'm thinking!

Issued Shares
Number of shares in issue 313,651,744

Number of shares not in public hands 188,698,244 93.71%

Major Shareholders

Mr Ralph Stross 64,279,531 31.92%
Mr Stuart Krell 64,162,713 31.86%
Mr Melvin Lawson 44,000,000 21.85%
Belgravia Homes Limited 16,000,000 7.95%

Directors and Family Members
Mr Ralph Stross 64,279,531 31.92%
Mr Stuart Krell 64,162,713 31.86%
Mr Rodney Graves 256,000 0.14%

[andre] 21/8/2009 14:03

Does anyone have a list of these 'main shareholders' who were so amenable to the way this 'restructure' was done? It would be interesting to see who thinks this is a fair way to treat private shareholders.

[andre] 21/8/2009 11:07

I am sure that there are plenty of other companies that would have paid way more for the assets than this bunch did. But then, with the whole thing going through in a day, nobody will have been asked whether they would like to pay more - which would have benefitted the shareholders - which is supposed to be the interests that the administrators are there to protect. Or perhaps they are there to protect the interests of only some of the shareholders? I am not sure, as my insolvency law is a bit sketchy in this area. Or perhaps insolvency practitioners are sketchy. The administrators should hang their heads in shame for their part in this - as should the company who owe all of the shareholders an real explanation.

Perhaps the shareholders should nip around en masse to the offices of the administrators and request details of how their interests were considered?

All IMHO, of course.

[viateluk] 20/8/2009 13:33

Totally agree RI.....naturally they have only their customer's interests at heart......I heard that Mr. Walmsely, who may have been here before I believe.....and the rest are, all are working for nothing too! In the customer's interests of course :-)

I was thinking about offering my services free of charge to set it up as registered charity!

[wilson blade] 20/8/2009 12:53

Thats a cracker red imp,try looking up the profiles on some of the team you might change your opinion.

[red imp] 20/8/2009 11:33

You bunch of cynics! They are only doing this 'to ensure that services for customers of the Group are unaffected'. Nothing at all to do with keeping themselves in a job.

[hyper al] 19/8/2009 22:43

some people have very low standards

[andre] 19/8/2009 22:35

Close to the wind it is. I talked to my accountant and about the legality and he confirmed that the greatest need for increased regulation today is in the area of insolvency and administration.

What they have done is indeed legal. Morally bankrupt? Ethically corrupt? Perhaps. But legal, apparently.

Apparently so much is left to the administrators discretion. If, in his opinion, the business would benefit most from selling the assets to another company in the same group as opposed to offering them to ANYONE else or letting anyone know that they are even available or that the company is in administration then that is legal. And who appoints and pays the administrator? The company do. Imagine the conversations before the appointment of the administrator for yourself.

I find the loophole which allows these people to write off debt and carry on as if nothing has happened to be beneath contempt. But then you live your life by your own set of standards.

All IMHO of course.

[wilson blade] 18/8/2009 19:08

If they have sailed close to the wind on legality I'm expecting something simular for the shareholders.

[ghtt] 18/8/2009 19:03

The parent Company owns the Subsidiary. If the parent company is in Administration due to debts exceeding assets, then the subsidiary is an asset to be sold by the Administrators to satisfy claims by Creditors first. Then and only then would any shareholders own anything.

I cannot see how any existing shareholders of the parent own anything, or will get anything?

[pedr01] 18/8/2009 13:49

Don't burn the certificates yet, as far as I can tell PI's still have a stake in the new company ... Asset Outlook Limited was a wholly owned subsiduary ... RNS states;

The Company also proposes to seek shareholder approval to change the Company's name to Asset Outlook Holdings Plc which the directors believe is more appropriate given the Company's strategic focus.

Trading in the Company's shares on AIM remains suspended pending a further
announcement which will be made as soon as practicable.

You should be grateful for small mercies, usually they take them into admin and set up a totally new (private) company to buy back the assets and all PI's get wiped out ... been burnt before ...

Good luck to all holders ... keeping my fingers crossed for you.

[viateluk] 18/8/2009 11:46

I think they have been setting this up for some time if you look at their history and planned to keep it just the right side of the legal system. But what's the point of pursuing it...what tangible assets there were have been acquired.
One's not a happy bunny and indeed it is a sad and sorry Britian anyway, we live in.

[hyper al] 17/8/2009 21:54

How the heck can they do that?

[andre] 17/8/2009 21:41

And this is legal???

"On 6 August 2009, the Company placed Eagle-i Telematics into administration,
with Jeremy Woodside and Ben Barrett of Tenon Recovery, Manchester being appointed as administrators. On the same date, Asset Outlook Limited (formerly
Ei Leasing Limited), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, acquired certain assets (including the goodwill, fixtures and fittings, stock and customer records) of Eagle-i Telematics from the administrators to ensure that services for customers of the Group are unaffected for a cash consideration payable in four instalments before 6 November 2009".

What a sad and sorry world we live in.

[cheshiremoggie] 12/8/2009 18:59

Not quite dead yet - try reading the RNS.

[ghtt] 12/8/2009 18:28

Looks like this has finally died, after having a ridiculous £7m mkt cap on a £1m t/o businesss losing £1.5m pa............ reality bites hard.

[andre] 12/8/2009 10:22

All the private club members.