Enables IT Share Discussion Threads

[503831rct] 20/1/2010 16:56

I understand, from somebody who spoke with the NOMAD last week, that there is some pressure being bought upon the Directors by The LSE and that certain deadlines have been stipulated. From my part I am not expecting any return, I just cannot see how the business justifies more money being thrown at it.

[503831rct] 20/1/2010 16:56

I understand, from somebody who spoke with the NOMAD last week, that there is some pressure being bought upon the Directors by The LSE and that certain deadlines have been stipulated. From my part I am not expecting any return, I just cannot see how the business justifies more money being thrown at it.

[andre] 19/1/2010 19:47

elmandorfAB - do you know if they have had a 'notice of delisting' or similar threat? I don;t see too much impetus to do, or say, anything without them being pressed.

[wilson blade] 19/1/2010 12:23

I think its simple economics, the backers of this company cant afford for it to close its doors too many "charges" flying around.

[elmandorfab] 18/1/2010 13:10

Andre, delisting can make it more difficult for a company to raise money, and in this respect, it sometimes is a first step towards a company folding. The credibilty of the current cast of police acadamy (EI directors)is already in tatters. Delisting will trigger the company's creditors to call in loans, or its credit rating might be further downgraded, increasing its interest expenses and potentially even pushing it into administration.

Number of staff working there a year ago was around 50. currently, there are around 10 people in the business, with the old CEO (Brian Egerton) leaving the business at the end of the month.

[andre] 18/1/2010 09:17

But will that change anything? Delisting seems to be exactly what they want. It saves them fees surely? How many people are left working for this company elmandorfAB?

[elmandorfab] 18/1/2010 08:49

Wilson, The CEO will be the last person to leave the building. He really thinks he has a unique business model that will generate serious revenues.

Only a couple of days ago, he was still giving the message that everything is on track and all jobs are safe. No mention to the staff that they have only 2 weeks left before the Co. is de-listed due to him not making a statement to the city for nearly 7 months.

[wilson blade] 15/1/2010 09:06

elmandorfAB reading your posts you seem to be well informed when do you think he will cut and run or is it too late again?

[503831rct] 12/1/2010 19:24

Basket case m'thinks. The major backers must be aware of a certain item due to the fact that it was RNS'd as an update to a previous RNS...DYOR

[wilson blade] 12/1/2010 12:48

Well this says it all, do you think the three major backers are aware of this?

[elmandorfab] 11/1/2010 15:14

You have to laugh at the speculation, rumours and constant gossip around this tin-pot outfit.

No significant revenue has hit this company for over 12 months.

The current CEO is refusing to communicate anything to his staff, shareholders, or the city, despite him assuring us that in July that an announcement would be made. He even spun the rumour of a take over/merger with another outfit. The other outfit refused to take calls after the first meeting. long after, the CEO still insisted it was a done deal.

The Finance Director & co. sec walked from the business. The CTO also walked from the business

They have a half decent product for a dot on the map telematics provider. The problem is they are punching way above their bodyweight in temrs of clients and potential clients. Once they to a credit check/due dillegence, it all semms to go quiet.

The current CEO was disqualified as a director for 7 years for.....trading whilst insolvent, a few years back

Orange turned every SIM off a few weeks back. The bill for 110k was unpaid for some time. This included the employee's mobile phones for 10 days.

They have had over 20+ sales staff, including 3 sales directors in the time the CEO has been there. They've fired them all, blamed them for lack of sales and not to mention that for 5 months on the spin in 09, every member of staff was paid late, or in some cases, not at all.

I've saved the best for last. They have 3 weeks to present interims and provide clear evidence of financial stability, or the shares will be de listed

[andre] 25/11/2009 09:12

I don't get the impression that anyone is fighting it and all are resigned to the fact that the directors now own the whole company and their previous shareholding is gone. IMHO

[viateluk] 21/11/2009 22:17

IMHO opinion your are right....it is alleged that they even have tried to get
away with transfering assets into the holding company that they had no authority so to do. I'm not sure whether those hurt with that tranfer will lay down quietly...although I would have expected to have heard something by now.

[andre] 21/11/2009 19:41

Looks like the directors walked away with the company again. IMHO

[wilson blade] 16/11/2009 18:57

Saw a hor air balloon today, made me wonder hows EI doing!!!!!!!!

[andre] 07/10/2009 18:07

....and the right side of smelling of fish.

[viateluk] 07/10/2009 13:39

My guess is that you would have lost them CM and I may be wrong here....my understanding is, and I haven't bothered to find out for sure, that only the major former shareholders, there are three I believe, (and maybe the old CEO of the old company) hold shares in the "restructured" version.....still trading as it was of course.

No it is certainly not transparent....but almost certainly just about the right side of legal.

[cheshiremoggie] 06/10/2009 21:17

Well, whatever is going on with this company is certainly not transparent. I would be annoyed and worried if I had any shares here.

CM.

[viateluk] 06/10/2009 00:39

There isn't one of course...its Eagle Eye Ltd which changed its name at least once just changing its name again....what on earth have those adminstrators been engaged to do. Forget it.

[cheshiremoggie] 05/10/2009 23:09

"A new company has been formed" - which one is that then? As far as I can see no new company has been formed.

I would like to be enlightened.



CM.

[viateluk] 05/10/2009 22:26

Not as simple as that I'm afraid....and Eagle Eye Telematics, was well and truly insolvent....look at their accounts. Look at the previous year's losses also and tell me that this isn't the case.There was no way that they could continue trading legally without a further significant cash injection....good money after bad springs to mind.

Their losses last year were equivalent to turnover, ie: every pound invoiced produced a loss of the same amount...even after gross margins had been improved over the previous year says what to you? The major shareholders have taken steps to secure as far as is practicable their investment...can't blame them for that...but a simple change of name is no big deal and merely a paper execise.....and has nothing todo with restructuring. A new company has been formed. If debts have not been "written off"...(liquidated) what is the point of all this "restructuring" then?

Asset Outlook is now a nice new clean company offering a possible chance the 3 major shareholders, well possibly two, of getting their investment back....think about it.

[cheshiremoggie] 05/10/2009 18:21

I personally think the company has very little chance of survival but.....

It has not gone bust as such.

'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. '

...and...

'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. '

The AIM company is supposed to continue as Asset Outlook Holdings. Its subsidiary holds the assets 'bought' from the administrators. The shareholders do not appear to have been shafted (at the moment) but the creditors to EIT certainly will be. Personally I think it is shocking that a company can close down, wipe its debts clean and start again with no obligation to the previous debts.

All you shareholders should be ashamed of yourselves.


CM.

[robinhood5] 05/10/2009 17:06

Am I missing something here, I thought the subsidiary was in administration, and not the plc holding company that has had it's shares suspended. Can anyone clarify?