We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now


It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for monitor Customisable watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as LSE, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, Bovespa, BIT and more.

IRV Interserve

0.00 (0.00%)
17 May 2024 - Closed
Delayed by 15 minutes
Interserve Investors - IRV

Interserve Investors - IRV

Share Name Share Symbol Market Stock Type
Interserve IRV London Ordinary Share
  Price Change Price Change % Share Price Last Trade
0.00 0.00% 6.30 01:00:00
Open Price Low Price High Price Close Price Previous Close
6.30 6.30
more quote information »

Top Investor Posts

Top Posts
Posted at 03/7/2019 08:31 by cc2014
I note the Premier Inn job in London has been delayed again as well

Renewi tells investors it is expecting to be dumped from waste contract it signed in 2014

Interserve’s JV partner for its last outstanding energy-from-waste plant has resigned itself to the pair’s £950m contract being ripped up by the client.

Resource Recovery Solutions is a 50-50 partnership between the contractor and waste management firm Renewi, which in 2014 signed a 27-year waste management contract with Derby and Derbyshire council, that included a provision to build a £145m EfW plant in Derby.

Interserve has had sole responsibility for building the plant but more than two years after the spring 2017 deadline has failed to hand it over – despite entering the commissioning phase in January 2018.

The contract’s long-stop date was breached at the end of last September, freeing up the councils to bin RRS off the job.

In April, the councils gave RRS’s banks until next month to step in and ensure the plant is completed, adding: “If the banks decide against taking action then the councils will bring their long-term waste management contract with RRS to an end.”

Last month, Renewi told investors in its annual report that it has “provided for the complete termination of the PPP contract” because of “the failure of our partner, Interserve, to commission the facility”. It added: “[It] is two years late in commissioning.”;

Renewi said this would mean a €64m (£57m) writedown of its investment in the facility and extra provisions for the costs of exiting – which it said were the biggest reasons the firm lost €98m (£89m) in 2018.

And the firm also said it had booked €11.6m (£10.4m) of incoming money which, it said, is “owed to us by Interserve but which remains outstanding”.

Interserve declined to comment on when it expects to finish the EfW plant or Renewi’s €11.6m claim against it.

But a spokesperson for the group said: “We continue to work with all of the project stakeholders to bring the Derby facility into service and to resolve any outstanding matters.”

Spokespersons for Derby and Derbyshire council said their position was unchanged since April and that they are waiting to see whether the banks will respond by their 8 August deadline.

Renewi, which is listed on the London Stock Exchange and formed in 2017 after Shanks was bought by Dutch firm Van Gansewinkel Groep, declined to comment.

The plant has been dogged by a series of problems, including issues with the biofilter and the need to carry out remedial work on windows.

Locals in the Sinfin area of Derby, where the plant has been constructed, have also complained about smells and an infestation of flies.
Posted at 01/4/2019 13:31 by whyyy
Are all the incompetant BOD which and misled investors while the company slid into oblivion still in very gainful employment with the new Interserve?
Posted at 16/3/2019 17:32 by pally12
Yet another criminal activity where are all these so called finiacal odbusmen only there to keep the average investors at bay got no influence on insider trading unless your an individual investor companies are allowed to do it all the time when given the option kill your self or I will kill you which option would you take.great how the stock market activities go unpunished. There should be compensation like misold ppi
Posted at 16/3/2019 12:55 by bouleversee
I have read various comments in The Times and FT this morning.

FT (Lex)said that Coltrane spent £25m on its holding and that if the plan had been approved, it would have been left with one-hundredth of that plus part of any recovery. ( I don't really follow that. I should have thought one could only know how many shares they would be left with but the value could not be determined in advance. I'm still not clear as to how many of my 2629 shares I would have been left with had it gone through and what they were likely to be worth at that point; they cost me £11,592, now worth nothing. I presume there would have been a consolidation.)

This article also said that Coltrane objected to existing investors being left with just 5%, and suspected a stitch-up with creditors. The writer said "Perhaps the loss was worth it to make a point and that perhaps Coltrane had hedged. (Does he mean by shorting? Someone told me that C. hadn't shorted recently.)

Another article in FT says the existing board will be replaced (I bet they get huge redundancy handouts) but Debbie White and Mark Whiteling are expected to be retained. Also says Coltrane has threatened to sue the directors and advisers for mis-managing the refinancing and failing to consult shareholders. (Good luck to them on that one.)

The Times article by Alex Ralph was headed: "Interserve saved after deal rejected" which didn't sound like an appropriate heading in the circumstances". It also quotes IRV as saying that the pre-pack sale would "achieve substantially the same commercial principles as the deleveraging plan" which rather confirms what I had concluded, i.e. my shares would have been worth little or nothing even if there had been a yes vote. A Cabinet Office spokesman is quoted as saying they are confident a positive way forward will be found. (I can't say I am and the employees are worried.) This article says Coltrane is said to have a £100m exposure (can we believe anything we read in the press?) though it probably hedged its bets and therefore is unlikely to have suffered such a large hit.

Are we to assume that the High Court have already consented to the administration?

(What was the point of the meeting and vote, not to mention all the phoning and letters, if they had already set up the pre-pack and if that "involves a deleveraging on "substantially" the same terms as the proposed plan, according to Interserve?)

Another article in TT by Alistair Osborne queries why Coltrane voted against the plan and outlines their proposals which would left shareholders with 7.5%. and mentions a conspiracy theory that Coltrane had cooked up a deal with banks and fellow hedgies with its own pre-pack but says that seems unlikely.

It would be interesting to know the truth about all this but all academic since we are now completely stuffed.
Posted at 16/3/2019 10:47 by kingston78
The Board of Directors have wasted hundreds of millions of pounds adopting the untested technology of Waste to Energy. This is fatal, just like the Boeing 737 Max 8.

New technology always has teething problems, and you don't want to be the guinea pig.

Incompetent directors and accountants did not foresee the scale of the looming problems. They have forgotten the idiom "make hay while the sun shines". The company should have raised funds from investors early on to repair the balance sheet, as Capita had done. Even Kier had done it late in a painful way because its rights issue flopped, but fully underwritten. I have mentioned about incompetent accountants because I have seen many. I don't know how they are trained nowadays. For example, Kier has announced that it has understated its group debt by many millions because the debt has been netted off against assets held for sale. The crux of the matter is that debt is real whereas the proposed disposal may not go through. You cannot net the two off to suppress the true picture.

Another example is the scale of the fraud at Valerie Patisserie, which is beginning to emerge, according to the press. Competent auditors and in-house accountants would have spotted it.

Wrong strategy is one factor but arrogance and ignorance is another. If directors run the company as if a family business like their own they would have adopted a different approach.
Posted at 16/3/2019 03:21 by boffster
I can only guess that Coltrane decided that, having said they'd reject the deal, decided that they'd rather lose money than lose face. Wouldn't want to have to explain that one to their investors...
Posted at 15/3/2019 18:19 by ducati2345
Nothing happens if company goes bust shortest borrow shares and promise to return them , if no company exists due to insolvency then lender won’t want them back anyway as have no value. The insteade was probably private investors gambling on company being saved as like carrilion everyone thought it to big to fail
Posted at 20/12/2018 23:23 by billtucker
Pundit1- Unfortunately the FCA are investigating and rightly so should hold the company to account. Some investors as myself included, are 10s of thousands pound out of pocket due to false and misleading statements made by this company so it’s only fair they get a taste of their own medicine. It won’t be penalising recent shareholders as those that have bought the shares in the last 18-19 months knew perfectly well what they were buying into, and the FCA investigation has been well in the public domain.l. Why should holders who buy at 5p or 10p benefit at my and other holders expense? I would love this company to be held to account by the FCA, as it will also make other companies wary about misleading investors.
Posted at 19/11/2018 11:02 by cc2014
This one a week old but interesting nevertheless

If Interserve’s directors cannot turn round the cash-strapped, debt-ridden government contractor, they might consider jobs in retail banking. Or marketing broadband internet deals. Or selling car insurance. Because they appear familiar with the ploy of offering favourable terms to secure new money — while ignoring the people whose funds you already have.

On Tuesday, a BBC report claimed Interserve was “set to ask new investors for more capital”, but suggested its share price had collapsed on a “growing realisation that existing investors will get a worse deal than those prepared to commit fresh cash”. This implied a discounted share issue that would dilute the holdings of any existing investors unable to take part, while giving new investors a chunk of the company at a knockdown price.

In response, Interserve notably did not deny the report. And one person familiar with its thinking indicated a refinancing of debt could be sought, saying “new money is an option on the table”. However, whether investors put any down is another matter entirely.

It would not be the first time Interserve has gone after new money. In early January, it said year-end net debt had risen to £513m, which was 4.4 times its 2017 earnings and 2.7 times its market value. So, two months later — after the collapse of rival Carillion knocked a quarter off that value, taking the share price down to 70p — it struck a refinancing deal with its banks to gain borrowing facilities of £834m. But it made existing shareholders pay the price. As part of the deal, Interserve gave its new backers warrants to buy up to 20 per cent of the company at a bargain 10p a share.

All existing shareholders got was their existing stake in a more indebted company. One month later, Interserve asked them to approve higher borrowing limits. By the half-year, net debt was £645m, or nearly 5 times forecast earnings. With cash generation from operations negative in 2017 and the first half of 2018, this can only be quickly reduced by asset disposals. New backers signed up, though. Hedge funds Coltrane and Farringdon bought shares and voted for the debt — and Coltrane had bet against Carillion.

But banks and existing shareholders may not bear another financing deal favouring new parties. Lenders have shown an unwillingness to keep refinancing debt where there is no cash — as in the case of Carillion, House of Fraser, and Evans Cycles. Shareholders appear sick of being forced into emergency share issues under threat of dilution — they refused to stump up for Conviviality or Crawshaw and many protested over Patisserie Holdings.

Interserve gives its investors no more reason to be loyal. It has no unique selling point: it works in commoditised, narrow-margin contracting. So it has no unique buying point, either. With no long-term institutional investors holding a significant stake — its major shareholders are those hedge funds and retail investors — no one has anything to lose from saying thanks, but no thanks. Loyalty has a price.

Note Farringdon selling out
Posted at 14/6/2018 08:53 by aendjo
From evidence (11/6/2018) public accounts committee:

Chris Evans: I was looking at the weekend, Ms White, at Interserve and especially investor tips, and a number are betting on Interserve’s share price going down. Also, the same people—I think it’s Marshall Wace—hold a large short position on your company at the moment. How concerned are you by the market at the moment, with that sort of news?

Debbie White: The Interserve investor portfolio is split roughly into three components. We have Coltrane Asset Management, who have been a long-term shareholder and have added to their shares over this period of time; they own about 27% of the company. We have Farringdon Asset Management, a Dutch-based organisation. It split into two funds recently, and they together own roughly 10%.

The remaining 63% is held by retail investors. That is not an investor dynamic that you would want to see in the longer term, because the share price is dependent on very small changes in mood. The share blogs say x, y and z—there is a lot of speculation on the share blogs—and that tends to drive the share price. It is certainly not being driven by our larger investors, or by any new investors coming in. Part of the recovery plan is actually about talking to new investors—the funds you would expect to see owning parts of a UK plc—about joining the shareholder base.

I am not that concerned about it, actually. That might sound a bit flippant, but I am not being flippant. The variation is principally driven by retail investors. Our plan is very robust. We announced the first of our disposal sales in the last two weeks, which has brought in a significant amount of cash, and we are on track with the things that we are doing. We have to deliver our recovery plan, and I think the share price will respond accordingly.

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock