Invista Share Discussion Threads

[renew] 18/6/2012 09:21

Well at least they're giving us our cash back this time!!

[praipus] 13/6/2012 18:53

Scburbs I've copied your post and put it on Skyships CP+ thread, and the SHA and WAM threads hope you dont mind. P.

[praipus] 13/6/2012 18:27

Very well found scburbs.....glad Weiss are a fellow shareholder here.

Cant believe this line...

"We note that the Company disclosed in the Scheme Document that the Board received proposals from other parties that may have offered a level higher than 12.5 pence per share"!

[scburbs] 13/6/2012 17:16

Good to see Weiss expressing their displeasure.

"Weiss notes that the takeover offer by Internos Real Investments Limited ("Internos") of 12.5 pence in cash for each Invista Ordinary Share (which values the issued share capital of Invista at approximately £33.63 million) has been recommended to the Company's shareholders by the Board, despite the fact that the offer represents a substantial discount to the net asset value of Invista of £65 million as of 31 December 2011.

Even more surprising, the recommended offer represents a discount to the Company's £35 million of cash balances (not including the additional £3.5 million of cash held in escrow) as of the same date.

As shareholders in Invista, we find this takeover offer completely unacceptable. We believe the offer price can and should be significantly improved. We urge the Board and its advisors to actively and aggressively pursue means to improve the offer to shareholders, including by pursuing alternative proposals that value the Company at a premium to the price currently being offered by Internos.

We note that the Company disclosed in the Scheme Document that the Board received proposals from other parties that may have offered a level higher than 12.5 pence per share, but that these proposals were ultimately rejected by the Board. We strongly suggest that the Board should continue to engage with these parties and also work with Internos to improve their bid as part of a competitive bidding process."

[gingerplant] 29/5/2012 14:55

Shareholders Are Being Fleeced

[alanji] 24/5/2012 10:06

No chance of a counter bid - the directors have continued their appalling management right up to the end:

Internos has also received an irrevocable undertaking to vote in favour of the Scheme and the resolutions at the relevant Court Meetings and the General Meeting from HBOS I&IG in respect of 145,550,000 Ordinary Shares and 50,000 Preferred Ordinary Shares, representing respectively approximately 54.5 per cent. of the Ordinary Shares and 100 per cent. of the Preferred Ordinary Shares, and from Wellcome in respect of 65,283,016 Ordinary Shares, representing approximately 24.4 per cent. of the Ordinary Shares.

EDIT there is hope - These irrevocable undertakings fall away, inter alia, in the event of a competing offer for Invista which is 15% or more higher than the Offer.

[saturn5] 24/5/2012 09:08

Sadly this is a goner
What a shame for the long shareholders.

[spectoacc] 24/5/2012 07:30

12.5p, this has been a v poor investment for me, now getting my pocket picked.

[davidosh] 23/5/2012 23:13

If it is so low surely a counter offer could come in ? These recommended offers from parties with vested interests are really getting my goat up. You should see how shareholders have been shafted at Lees Foods where no independent directors so the advisers (Shore Capital) who will receive a success fee if the deal goes through recommended shareholders accept an offer that was less than the market price plus the dividend due this month !!

[scburbs] 23/5/2012 22:38

The only way the Directors could genuinely approve this would be if they believe the assets left were seriously poor.

So an either way they look like idiots having approve the acquisitions (on low gearing) relatively recently. A lesson in Maths needed?

[scburbs] 23/5/2012 22:22

Very cheeky. It is the Directors who are responsible.

"The Invista Directors, who have been so advised by Hawkpoint, as the independent financial adviser for the purposes of Rule 3 of the Takeover Code, consider the terms of the Offer to be fair and reasonable. In providing its advice to the Invista Directors, Hawkpoint has taken into account the commercial assessments of the Invista Directors."



Just so I am clear, the Invista Directors have relied on the assessment of Hawkpoint and Hawkpoint have relied on the Invista Directors!

Given the cash balances that the company has it is really difficult to understand how either party could have reached this conclusion without relying on the other.

You can't blame Internos for this as they should try and get this as cheap as possible. It is the INRE Directors who look like they don't have a clue and hiding behind Hawkpoint relying on their commercial assessments doesn't really alleviate this. Idiots! Hawkpoint are also picking up a fee for that bizarre assessment so have to accept a fair degree of responsibility too.

Definitely a few Directors here for the list to avoid.

There is nothing wrong with an opportunistic offer by Internos, it is the recommendation from the Directors that makes them look silly.

[envirovision] 20/4/2012 10:35

No Lloyds resolution yet then.

[redhill9] 16/4/2012 12:53

Shouldn't the 2012 final results have been published by now? Last year they were announced in March but can't find anything giving a date for this year.

[scburbs] 02/3/2012 13:03

Clearly there is some truth in that old saying about "no news"!

[spectoacc] 02/3/2012 07:54

Not a fat lot in that "update".

[sleepy] 31/1/2012 14:46

Price fell back just as I posted!

[sleepy] 31/1/2012 14:45

Looks like your post has moved the price!

[alanji] 31/1/2012 10:50

At long last I have been able to discover a good deal more about the secretive IREIF and IREOF.
I discovered that the co-investor in IREOF and IREIF are private funds issued by Friends First Life Assurance Co. Helpfully (unlike INRE!) they have published reports on the state of the funds (link below). The good news is that it now seems unlikely that the commitments will be drawn down and if they are it should maintain value. My previous concern was that the co's could be highly geared so the funds might be drawn down to pay off bank loans. According to the IREIF report the ltv was 36% at March 2011. The IREOF ltv is not stated but I do not think it can be too high -
Funds drawn down to 31/3/11 were 48% of £56m = £26.9m
Assets acquired to 31/12/2010 (2010 accounts) were £33.6m so ltv should not be more than 30%

Subsequent to the above, I have now received confirmation from INRE:
"I can tell you that as at our last reporting date (30 June 2011) both the unlisted funds (IREIF and IREOF) were approximately 40% levered (on an LTV basis) in each case."

Another encouraging statement in the reports:
"Invista the Investment Manager is now seeking to end their management of the Invista Portfolio and to sell their 50% interest in the Invista Portfolio. While they continue to manage the Invista Portfolio as usual, acquisition activity has been suspended pending further discussions and resolution." (my bold)
It may be that some monies are drawn down to enhance existing assets (which should have a largely neutral effect on nav) but it looks extremely likely that cash assets should exceed the current share price
There is a loan due for repayment in April 2012 within the IREIF investment but with the low ltv it should not be a problem. In any case INRE's share of the loan is only £4.175m so would only reduce the cash available by 4.2pps

Also found the following – why have INRE not published on their website? I cannot find one for IREOF.

Given the above, I now think a reduction of 50% of the nav of IREOF and IREIF is excessive. Using a 25% reduction I calculate the adjusted nav (based on June 2011 interims) to be 20.7pps of which cash is 12.9p. At the current offer of 7.75p could be a multi-bagger and I have bought more shares.

Unfortunately, we may have to wait a bit for our money. Attracting a buyer for IREOF and IREIF looks to be proving difficult and the co has indicated it may delist, although I cannot see shareholders agreeing to this. There is also the uncertainty of the Lloyds claim and counterclaim and the outstanding commitments to IREOF and IREIF so cash distributions are unlikely until these are resolved. IREIF and IREOF were launched as 5 year investments in May 2008 and Nov 2007, respectively, but not sure this means a lot and there is an option to extend their life by two one year periods.

On the other hand, there could be an announcement anytime and there will certainly be more news in the 2011 finals.

Good luck to any still holding.

Link to IREOF and IREIF reports

[zangdook] 21/1/2012 00:15

In response the counter claim a spokesperson for Lloyds said: 'After a thorough review, Lloyds Banking Group has discovered that Invista Real Estate Investment Management has made a number of errors with lease premiums and rent-free incentives on the Clerical Medical and Halifax Life property funds. The errors meant that the price of certain funds was incorrect and has to be rectified.

'Lloyds Banking Group is committed to the principles of Treating Customers Fairly and providing the highest standard of service to its customers. We will be communicating to all affected customers in due course, ensuring full redress to ensure they are put back in the position they would have been in had the errors not occurred.'

It also said the FSA was being kept fully informed on proceedings.

[zangdook] 21/1/2012 00:09

I have shares in issue at 264,657,750, so that 145,561,763 is exactly 55%.

[praipus] 20/1/2012 16:45

I wonder what chance they have of liquidating and distributing prior to court rulings etc.