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 charts Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.

IRV Interserve

0.00 (0.00%)
Last Updated: 01:00:00
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Interserve LSE:IRV London Ordinary Share GB0001528156 ORD 0.1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.00% 6.30 5.795 6.30 - 0.00 01:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover Profit EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap
0 0 N/A 0

Interserve Share Discussion Threads

Showing 12451 to 12474 of 12475 messages
Chat Pages: 499  498  497  496  495  494  493  492  491  490  489  488  Older
This company still winning contracts and trumping itself on soc media. Should have wound up and returned assets to shareholders
I remain amazed at this company. They still haven't finished the Premier Inn in London either yet they continue to win plenty of work. All UK tax-payer projects of course. Very few are for the private sector.
Fenners - look at my email 26.06.19 referring to document available from Companies House beta. The directors holdings are confirmed at 15 March 2019. Some had in excess of 600,000.
Nothing to do with IRV per se, but this conversation about Directors' shareholdings is way off beam. Directors are required to disclose their beneficial interests in shares however they are held - in nominee account, in certified form, whatever - and that extends to their immediate families (wives/husbands/children) whose holdings (however non-PC it may be!) are assumed to be "theirs".
Without re-reading this thread (and maybe I should) as I remember it , there seems to be some room in one of the declarations that the shares are still owned but they may be in a nominee account and no longer individually declared. Is that just to protect their addresses from prying disgruntled eyes ?

However it seems this is at odds with the earlier declaration of interests - whether or not they were in nominee accounts earlier - and it is that variation that leads to the question of whether they still owned them.

Whyy - like you say other shareholders seem disinterested. Why I don’t understand. So how can you obtain confirmation that nominees were used and shares lapsed just like mine did? Why no transparency in the statement of affairs?
Whyy - like you say other shareholders seem disinterested. Why I don’t understand. So how can you obtain confirmation that nominees were used and shares lapsed just like mine did? Why no transparency in the statement of affairs?
If they trade through a nominee RNS's are still required. To take it a step further often (but not always) directors will buy through the house broker because they have an ongoing relationship with them.

Howver the house broker doesn't send them a share certficate, it just goes in their nominee account.

Employee share ownership schemes can work the same way, where the staff don't have certficates either but their shares are held in nominee accounts.

Share certificates costs a fortune to administer.

But you are right in so far as if they trade through a nominee and set out deliberately to not inform the market it's very easy to do. There are large penalties and fines for doing so and directors can be barred for this. There are plenty of fraud cases over the years on this matter especially on AIM. Some frauds even go so far that directors inform the market they are buying when they are actually selling.

Finally it is my view you are persuing something that isn't there. The directors have been asked if they sold their shares by the administrator. Whether they have had to provide proof is another matter. Just a few days before the administration the directors made it clear they were not going to take part in the OO. They must have held their shares at that point.

Let me understand this...

Even though they are PLC directors if they buy through a nominee account they can trade with total anonymity and without the need to issue a RNS.

Many of their shares were gifted not bought like mere mortals do. Does this have any relevance to the nominee theory?

Would anyone else be prepared to ask E&Y a few pertinent? Might be good to let them know there's more than just me interested.

This who has helped me so far Alan Hudson

That's not what I'm saying Pundit. You can't see the shares on the statement of affairs as they've bought them through say Hargreaves Lansdown and all of HL's shares are declared. What HL don't do is breakdown their shareholding to the respective owners of the shares.

I use brokers who use nominee accounts, I guess most people on here do, so why would you expect or require directors to anything different?

With respect to the plant at Derby I expect in the end the Council won't pay for it but will take delivery of a plant which isn't as efficient as the specification. Of course if the plant can't meet emissions standards or is permanently smelly it may end up not being used at all. That would seem unlikely.

I wonder who pays for the plant to be dismantled and demolished? Presumably if it’s not fit for purpose it won’t just be left standing.
Cc2014 - so if you sell your shares via a nominee account it’s all ok then? You have the knowledge and detail that others don’t, your still an Exec director of a Plc and you don’t post an RNS to advise the market and other shareholders of your action? Like you did when shares were purchased and awarded in order to provide confidence. I dont see the difference. Nominee or not seems shares were traded. Not happy.
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.

Nominee accounts.
Whyy - I don’t understand either. Where did the shares go then? They were there in March but not shown on the statement of affairs with all the stakeholders who’s shares went to oblivion - as posted by E&Y. So they were disposed of? Help needed with this.
Here's the E&Y reply - I don't get it

Interserve PLC (in Administration)

I refer to my email of 28 June.

We have obtained confirmation that none of the directors of PLC have sold any shares during 2019 and that any previous share sales were properly reflected in the requisite RNS announcement.

For Interserve PLC

Whyyy - interesting post on LSE bulletin board from BillTucker. It’s suggested the directors sold their shares to the lenders as part of the deal. That’s nice if you had 600,000 + and got £1 or £2 a share. As it was a private arrangement, not on the open market, its suggested no need for an a RNS. To me it seems shareholders were conned and got screwed.
Interesting response from EY. Couldn’t be clearer! Look forward to hearing on the response from the directors to EYs question about shares traded in 2019. As I said previously the EY document that’s filed on line confirms the Exec directors holdings in March 2019. No mention of nominees etc. Why no transparency in the EY statement of affairs of Interserve Plc. I’ll have any benefit the directors enjoyed and so should all the other wiped out shareholders imo.

this from companies house...



Dear Sir/Madam

Companies House is purely a registry for company information. We have no involvement in the running of the company. The details relating
to shares will have been submitted by the Administrator overseeing the case. I suggest you contact them directly as they may be able to answer your query. Our records show the administrators to be: ALAN MICHAEL HUDSON and ROBERT HUNTER KELLY of ERNST & YOUNG

and this from E&Y

Interserve PLC (In Administration)
Thank you for your email of 25 June, the contents of which have been noted.

Please note that the statement of affairs are the directors’ statement of affairs, which are prepared and submitted by the directors of Interserve PLC (in Administration) (“PLC”) to the Joint Administrators, being myself and Mr Kelly, who are partners of Ernst & Young LLP.

In accordance with agreed practice and in the interest of the privacy and security of the individual members (i.e. shareholders) of PLC, the following was adopted in relation to the members’ schedule which was filed at Companies House:

I. the employees (including directors) who are members of PLC and not covered by a nominee, which a number are, are stated on the members’ schedule as a collective total – this is consistent with the required treatment of employees/former employees who are creditors. Within the submitted statement of affairs, there is an amount for “EmployeesR21; and there are a number of nominee amounts; and

II. the details of individual members of PLC are stated on the members’ schedule without addresses.

We are currently obtaining confirmation that none of the directors of PLC have sold any shares during 2019 and that any previous share sales were reflected in the requisite RNS announcement, and will respond when we have confirmed the position, but, as mentioned above, the employees, including the directors, are included as a composite total or within nominee balances, if relevant.

For Interserve PLC

I thought you meant Companies House.

Surely you needed to involve the Company's own registrar - Capita or whoever they are ?

got this from the FCA

unhappy with the lack of listing of directors as shareholders for Interserve plc [ ref:_00Db0K8yP._5000X1p0teg:ref ]

Thanks for contacting the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) on 25 June 2019.

In response to your matter, I understand you're unhappy with the lack of information published regarding the shareholders of Interserve. Hopefully I can provide some useful information in relation to this and guidance on your next steps.

Interserve plc

I have since reviewed our financial services register, which is a public database holding information of firms and individuals, either previously authorised, currently regulated or unauthorised, and it appears Interserve plc are not regulated.

However, there is no requirement for a firm to appear on the register, unless they're carrying out a regulated activity (e.g. selling insurance, brokering credit).

Our regulation

We're tasked with regulating the financial sector in the UK and in order to do this, we set out rules, guidelines and principles we expect firms and individuals to adhere to. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) outlines our role as a regulator, the activities and products that require regulating.

Generally, we only regulate certain elements of share dealings, for example the buying and selling of shares. In regards to the details of shareholders a firm publishes, this is not an aspect we regulate and therefore there are no rules in relation to this in the handbook.

Your next steps

Therefore, you may wish to contact someone from a legal background who may be aware of the rules that would apply in this scenario and who would be responsible for providing this information. You may to contact Citizens Advice first as they provide free legal advice and guidance. Please refer to their 'contact us' page for contact details.

I hope the information I’ve provided will prove useful.

Here's what I sent -

Myself and a number of ex-shareholders of the now defunct Interserve (in administration, trading as Interserve plc now) are confused that the recent statement of affairs by E&Y didn't seem to list any of the directors as shareholders, yet they had substantial holdings not long ago.

We would like to establish when their holdings were sold and why we can find no RNS informing us of their disposal.

Can you help us please.

CC - the RNS rules and rules governing directors trades would still apply. The previous Execs didn’t use a nominee as some of their names are included in the EY statement of affairs schedule. I don’t think a nominee is the answer. Anyway some shareholders used nominees and these are included in the EY schedule. Any other ideas? Anybody!
Depends whether they were in a nominee account?
Chat Pages: 499  498  497  496  495  494  493  492  491  490  489  488  Older

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock