Jarvis Share Discussion Threads

[mitch101] 02/4/2010 00:46

stepin1.you have similarities......like.............with..............

[pugg1ey] 01/4/2010 20:32

interesting debates in the comments section.



sorry if already posted

[optomistic] 01/4/2010 20:22

Appeal to ministers after Jarvis job cuts
1st April 2010

By Ian Briggs - Deputy Editor, Yorkshire
TRANSPORT Secretary Lord Adonis is being petitioned in an attempt to save around 1,100 jobs at Yorkshire rail network services group Jarvis.

Yorkshire Minister Rosie Winterton is also being asked to intervene after yesterday's announcement which has hit jobs at the group's head office in York.

Jobs will also go at Doncaster, Leeds, Glasgow, Newcastle and Peterborough.

A group of MPs have written to Lord Adonis to ask him to step him and help.

Jarvis's administrator Deloitte said that in the absence of further funding, it was not possible to continue trading three of the group's companies.

A statement from Deloitte said only the facilities management part of the group will continue operating as normal.

Meanwhile, there has been "a significant amount of interest" in Jarvis Accommodation Services, Deloitte said.

Last week Nick Edwards, Neville Kahn, Phil Bowers and Ian Brown, all partners at accountancy firm Deloitte, were appointed as joint administrators of Jarvis and its subsidiary Jarvis Accommodation Services.

Network Rail has said that contingency plans are in place to ensure work that cannot be performed by Jarvis can still be carried out.

[steve1905] 01/4/2010 12:59

Steppin, to go on from your analogy, we wanted a blow job - but got slipped a crippler

[ninjapete2] 01/4/2010 11:56

I feel really sorry for you guys but to be realistic you are very unlikely to get any of your investment back. Shareholders come last in the list of creditors.

[stepin1] 01/4/2010 11:53

Timeoff...

i look at network rail differently like a women..

if you don't look after her and tell her shes beautiful forget her birthday

and valentines ...

then she wont give you what you want.

[timeoff] 01/4/2010 11:22

In my opinion Network Rail have well and truly shafted Jarvis. They will turn round and blame the woeful Norris and Co. and point at their ineptitude for Jarvis' demise but truth is, if they could put aside their long running spat for one minute, they could have prevented Jarvis from going under with the subsequent job losses.

"Simon Kirby, director of investment projects at Network Rail, said: "It's never easy to see one of our suppliers cease trading, especially when there is plenty of work available and investment in the railway is at historically high levels."

What a bunch of....

[stepin1] 01/4/2010 11:14

We have to pay is Burdale HMRC Redundancies and Administrator so if you takes RMTs line we needed only £19m this shows with very little injection from a balance sheet restructuring and capital raising all isn't totally lost...

Remember now Capital Raising can come in the form of an Asset sale in this Case Jarvis Accommodation... as we all know this isn't part of our long term strategy....

Now.. for the balance sheet to be restructured the only way is to tell creditors to take a hair cut put your self in their situation....
And to force this the only way is to go into administration.. the redundancies had to occur not only because we knew we couldn't pay staff also because if we kept staff on for two weeks or more and then if someone buys us the employment contracts are carried forward.

Not only that if have you looked at the Rail Side. It had no working Capital left and staffs monthly wages due today were not forthcoming

Now it's all about how much does someone want to save Jarvis Rail... and re employ staff... Well find out in a few days as if nothing new comes out then its game over.

[stepin1] 01/4/2010 11:11

Belhus.. if you look at it at another angle.. it shows were we not about to be dropped and replaced by someone new...

Can I request someone give me a hand.. as im trying to contact Deloittes can someone call them on behalf of PIs and see what they are saying

From what I've read yesterday Network Rail believed it had enough contractors to carry on the work we were about to loose. We lost the work as we had no working capital and or network stripped us of work as we have no working capital.

This is come along the lines as Jarvis being stripped on heath and safety fears for passengers.

RMT are saying under the Railways Act the Transport Minister can step in.

Network Rail is saying they don't need to.

Its obvious that even at this level Network Rail and Jarvis are not in good relations.

What was wanted ?

RMT and the Administrators say just pay on time pay what's owned and underwrite work given
Or
Give us 4 weeks for a conservative government to come in.

Network Rail is saying. We wont pay upfront for work you haven't won or done..

So we are being told 2 different things...

Now at best.. EOn is still alive and BAM need us for Chiltern apart from that all other contracts have gone. So I can't see how you can revive Jarvis Rail. Even if we now get funding...

Unless Network Rail Put out a statement Regarding Us ...saying something like contracts will be given or tenders can be given in etc as normal as long as working capital in place.. which isn't hard to do...

But still this is a massive blow

Now if you look at the balance sheet... if we can assume .. again it's a grey area... that the only secured creditor is Burdale Finance.. then the £72M owed to others is basically gone as our balance sheet stood at (40m) which included pension liability .. Which now Is gone...

Its now a case of how do you release all this value for everyone.. as if you give anything to share holders to have to also include the creditors...

[bulgarianpropertydoteudotcom] 01/4/2010 10:58

bel the renewals extension a bit of a coincidence i dont think so

[stepin1] 01/4/2010 10:31

can someone post me the major shareholders.. as the information i have from TDWaterhouse and the FT seem to be misleading Thanks

[mike456] 01/4/2010 01:16

I've written my holding off in my head, but there may be a small glimmer of hope for shareholders depending on how Burdale secured their funding and how the rest of the Jarvis group was structured.

I wasn't going to post this as I don't want to give anyone false hope, but if you consider a simple group structure consisting of a holding company and two subsidiaries, each of which are owned 100% by the holding company.

The parent company may not be trading, but on the other hand could be the company that holds the employment contracts of the directors (cynics may think this would only be done to ensure that the directors of my imaginery group could ensure that top company could retain sufficient cash to pay off the contractual liabilities of the directors in the event that either of the two trading subsidiaries went into administration).

Now consider the normal practice that the provider of loan finance for the group as a whole insists on a cross guarantee against the assets of all 3 companies so that they have the best chance of getting their money back in the event that one or more of the companies in the group get into difficulty and the covenants supporting the lend are breached

Now let's pretend that subsidiary 1 goes pop, containing no cash, some fixed assets, debtors, the employment contracts of most of the workers and the liabilities for HMRC and other unsecured creditors. I think I'm right in saying that the assets/debtors would be converted into cash and the cash be used to pay the redundancy settlements and outstanding wages of the workforce, but if there wasn't enough to cover this then the state (ie UK taxpayer) would pick up the tab for the balance whilst lesser ranking creditors and the shareholder of the subsidiary (ie the holding company) would receive nothing.

Now imagine subsidiary 2 was profitable, generating cash and could be sold by the administrator as a going concern. The proceeds from disposal would go straight to the holding company.

Now it becomes clear why the funder wanted a group cross guarantee since they can call on topco to pay them back their lend. The administrator takes their fees out of top co whilst the directors get paid off from their too but the unsecured creditors of subsidiary 1 have no recourse to get their cash back from the holding company since their contracts would be with a separate legal entity (ie subsidiary 1)

If there was any cash left after all creditors of the holding company (including the funding provider for the group as a whole) have been satisfied in full then it should be made available for distribution to the shareholders of the holding company.

I appreciate that there a lot of what ifs surrounding my example but I think it shows how it might be possible for some cash to make its way to shareholders even if on the face of it the group as a whole has creditors that outweigh the value of its assets. However, as I said earlier, I'm not holding my breath.

[squire007] 01/4/2010 00:28

It stinks but a little rumour we might see something ! but i have written my 600k shares off, and hope for the best. The way this happened stinks and seems our best way out !!!!

[mitch101] 01/4/2010 00:15

agreed Ian............. bought at 8.75 sold half at 19 and retained initial investment as is my strategy on hi risk/hi reward stocks so I have lost nothing but the profit, but I resent blokes ramping stocks fer no valid reason. I feel for those that have lost more than they can really afford to

[ianio5691] 31/3/2010 23:13

Everyone has their own trading strategies.....and it depends on your perception of risk/reward. Yes, this was high risk...but equally offered potentially high rewards. The only shocker for me with this, was the timing......thought once we had got this year behind us and with the potential contracts up for grabs, we had made it through the minefield....to get blown up at the fence when i thought we were home and dry....

[mitch101] 31/3/2010 23:10

spractive... have you got any upbeat, superlative, outlandish, unbelievable, ridiculous,ramping statements to make at this juncture?

[smellyjim] 31/3/2010 23:03

above taken from nakedtrader site. All this has made me realise i've been taking to big a positions in stocks full stop. Back to trading and not holding for me, my sincerest condolences to those that have lost cash here. It's a shocker considering this was (once) a large U.K infrastructure co and not some AIM wishy washy mining stock with just a hole and a dream. Don't give up on the market though, there's always opportunities imo.

[smellyjim] 31/3/2010 22:57

"Sad to see Jarvis go into administration - causing much grief among private investors. But honestly, surely anyone in Jarvis should have been in with only small money.

I'm shocked when I read some investors had 100k and 70k in there. Some say their pension money was in it. One said how was he going to tell his wife.

On the one hand I feel sorry for them but on the other how stupid can you be to put so much money into what was obviously such a high risk play? An old cliche but never ever put all your eggs in one high risk basket.

The same can be said for some of the Falkland Island oil shares which got badly hit this week. Again, those without the money to afford it were putting in way too much and again it's hard to feel sorry for them."