Fii Group Share Discussion Threads

[daz1966] 21/1/2003 16:15

Justin Stewart ?

[moogee] 21/1/2003 16:11

Justin Stewart has raised his stake to over 10%. So the questions springing to mind are:

Who is he?
What does he do?
Why does he want them?

Things look on the up for FII.

[daz1966] 14/1/2003 11:55

The 9000 trade today 14/01/2003 is a buy

[moogee] 04/12/2002 13:24

Ridsdale resigns with immediate effect. Doug Ware now in charge as Executive Chairman. Thoughts anyone?

This is not a shock since the press said that he is removing many of his fingers from the pies of business. This was the biggest critism Ridsdale received recently and was blamed for not having a firm grip at Leeds Utd.

I'm sad to see Ridsdale go since he was high profile and might have attracted companies to reverse into Fii. However, on the other hand he has alot on his plate at the moment and it would be better to have people dedicated in turning around our shoe business.

Also, if we ever do find a 'reversing' company no doubt that particular business will have its own Chairman.

Overall, probably for the best but not the news I'm waiting for.

[moogee] 09/10/2002 15:22

Since FII may use the latest Bradstock ruling for their pension funding debt problem here is the Bradstock Case info.

Bradstock Group pension scheme compromise

The High Court has held that pension scheme trustees can compromise a debt owed to them by the scheme sponsors under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 and the deficiency regulations, in appropriate circumstances, and has also commented that it does not think that, once a shortfall has been determined and certified in the course of a winding-up, the trustees can go back for more.

On Friday 10 May 2002, the High Court agreed a compromise between Bradstock Group PLC, a reinsurance broker, and Bradstock Group Pension Scheme Trustees Limited, the trustee of the Bradstock Group Pension Scheme, whereby the trustee agreed to settle its claim for contributions outstanding under the minimum funding requirement provisions of the Pensions Act 1995.

The commercial deal was that the company would immediately pay the scheme cash and new Bradstock shares and then pay further sums, depending on profits and credit write-backs.

The case is noteworthy for three reasons.

Firstly, although it is well established that, in principle, trustees have the power to settle claims against third parties in appropriate circumstances and that they may ask the Court to sanction such a deal, there has been a doubt about whether or not it was permissible for the trustee to compromise a debt owed by an employer to a pension scheme under the Pensions Act 1995. The Court concluded that it was permissible to do so.

The second interesting point was the comment by the judge, Mr Charles Aldous QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, Chancery Division, that the words "at any time" in section 75(3) of the Pensions Act 1995 enable the amount of the shortfall to be determined by the actuary at any time within the course of the winding-up, but once determined and certified it is no longer appropriate to issue a second certificate at a later date, i.e. the trustees cannot keep coming back for more. However, the judge acknowledged that some specialists take a different view, the point had not been argued out before him and that it was unnecessary for him to decide the point.

The third striking feature of the case was that the UK Listing Authority ("UKLA") originally classed the compromise arrangement as a class 1 transaction for Bradstock Group PLC under the terms of the Listing Rules, i.e. it was sufficiently important to require announcement on the Stock Exchange. However, after representations from the company, the UKLA agreed to waive this requirement.

Pensions solicitor John Sabel, litigation solicitor Angela Pearson and corporate solicitor Richard Moulton of Ashurst Morris Crisp acted for Bradstock Group PLC.

Pinsent Curtis Biddle acted for the scheme trustee and Nabarro Nathanson acted for the representative beneficiary. Mr Robert Ham QC was instructed on behalf of the company; Mr Michael Furness QC was instructed on behalf of the trustee and Mr Nigel Inglis-Jones QC and Mr Nicolas Stallworthy were instructed on behalf of the representative beneficiary.

Hope this may be of use.

[braders] 24/8/2000 12:04

Has anyone any idea's on what might happen next? This announcement doesn't look to good or am I wrong?

[cimac] 24/8/2000 07:04

I agree that the announcement falls far short of
what we all expected and I cannot understand why
FII has trade marks for a company in which they
are only going to hold 8.6%

Sell off the shoe business and launch a new
company with the 8.6% of Extempus plus cash
from a rights issue(good terms for existing
shareholders). Then seek out further cutting
edge investments. That's my suggestion to
create some decent shareholder value.