ADVFN Logo

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

Trending Now

Toplists

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

Registration Strip Icon for discussion Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.

MFW Mayflower

6.75
0.00 (0.00%)
19 Mar 2024 - Closed
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Stock Type
Mayflower MFW London Ordinary Share
  Price Change Price Change % Share Price Last Trade
0.00 0.00% 6.75 00:00:00
Open Price Low Price High Price Close Price Previous Close
6.75
more quote information »

Mayflower MFW Dividends History

No dividends issued between 19 Mar 2014 and 19 Mar 2024

Top Dividend Posts

Top Posts
Posted at 01/12/2006 19:12 by soysoy
Yes sometime in January 2007


Mayflower saga enters final chapter
The AIDB's investigation into the collapse of the busmaker has not gone smoothly

Penny Sukhraj, Accountancy Age 26 Oct 2006
In the ongoing saga of Mayflower, the bus company that collapsed in 2004 with debts of £250m, one stage has come to an end.

The hearings into misconduct allegations regarding the accounting professionals involved concluded last week.

Over four weeks, a panel heard complaints from the Accounting Investigation and Disciplinary Body against the nation's largest audit firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, former finance director David Donnelly and Transbus subsidiary financial controller Ian Shelton.

It has not been plain sailing for Cameron Scott, the AIDB's executive counsel.

The complaint against Shelton, that he had behaved dishonestly, was dismissed on the first day of PwC's hearings (his case had been heard earlier). That would have been enough to throw anyone off their stride and Scott and his QC Patrick Lawrence also dropped a key complaint against PwC.

That could prove expensive. PwC lawyers said that the firm was seeking costs in relation to the defence of that claim. The body, unlike predecessor, the Joint Disciplinary Scheme, provides for costs, which could run into the tens of thousands.

PwC has attracted most of the attention in regard to the case and was initially accused of two things: that it should have expressed concern as to whether Mayflower could continue as a going concern when there were issues over financing in 2002; and that it should have conducted a walk-through analysis of Mayflower's invoice discounting facility.

The case on invoice discounting fell apart fairly comprehensively after Shelton, accused over similar issues, was cleared, meaning the firm faces only the first charge.

The tribunal has raised a number of issues, not least the whereabouts of Transbus's former FD, David Berry. Although Berry had been available for preliminary interviews with the companies investigation branch of the Department of Trade and Industry, the forensic team from Grant Thornton, hired by HSBC to look into Mayflower, could not reach him. 'We are unable to interview Mr Berry who, we were told, had moved to South America,' investigators said.

Among others, the tribunal heard evidence from Emile Woolf, the well-known author of accounting texts and after whom a training body is named.

Lawrence referred to Woolf who, in giving evidence and after looking at their audit papers, showed how PwC's prima facie worries about going concern, were somewhat allayed by the assurances which Mayflower was to receive from the banks.

But Lawrence said none of the assurances could be found in writing.

PwC's own expert witness also accepted a point wholly unhelpful to the firm's cause – that the reasonable auditor considering the going concern issue should have had regard to the fact that prospective lenders were concerned with the company's inability to maintain an acceptable cash flow.

Later on he also conceded that PwC should have given more attention to the risk that Mayflower would breach its loan covenants with major financiers, as this was relevant to the going concern issue.

Woolf also came under attack from PwC.

KPMG auditor Michael Ashley appeared for PwC and was similarly scrutinised by the AIDB.

The process appears to have been a bruising one for many concerned, with PwC's QC Michael Pooles being particularly scornful of the AIDB case.

Referring to the 'red flags', which the AIDB alleged should have given the firm cause to worry about whether Mayflower could continue as a going concern, Pooles said: 'They're not even yellow flags... this is a company which has its tough time, is well-managed, is investing hard, is still paying its dividends and still pays its dividend in June 2003.

'It was going through expansion into new and interesting areas... at the same time relocating and modernising, which involved capital investment of a significant amount.'

Neither analysts nor non-executives nor any other groups picked up the issues that the AIDB says PwC should have detected, Pooles said.

In closing, Pooles added: 'When you refresh your memories as to the process of questioning of the individual members of the PwC team, is that whenever Mr Lawrence

sought to dig down into their underlying work, he rapidly received some very detailed and unchallenged answers...which he rapidly departed from...'

Pooles argued that PwC had looked at the issues thoroughly, saying that Mayflower was a company that continued to make a profit 'to the bitter end'.

'The highly experienced board of directors and the highly experienced team of auditors did not have significant concerns and neither did the banks as is made clear by any objective analysis,' Pooles said.

As for Donnelly, the complaint against him is that he failed to disclose a shortfall in Falkirk during a delicate period, to the board, to the auditors and to the banks.

He placed heavy reliance on his finance director Ian Duffin, in control at Mayflower subsidiary Transbus.

Donnelly's lawyer, Ben Hubble, argued that he had failed to disclose the losses as early as he could have done because he was waiting for further information from Duffin.

'Until such time as the investigation was complete, the view of Donnelly was that it was inappropriate to go to the auditors,' Hubble told the panel.

The AIDB's own witness, Woolf, himself admitted that there were no grounds for complaint against Donnelly, in a move that could be telling for the AIDB's chances of success on that front.

The panel will sit in January to listen to arguments about possible fines or punishments, but no date for judgment has yet been set. It may take a little while longer, then, before the Mayflower episode reaches its final stage.

Permalink to this story
www.computeractive.co.uk/2167334
Posted at 27/10/2006 16:11 by soysoy
Mayflower saga enters final chapter
The AIDB's investigation into the collapse of the busmaker has not gone smoothly

Penny Sukhraj, Accountancy Age 26 Oct 2006
In the ongoing saga of Mayflower, the bus company that collapsed in 2004 with debts of £250m, one stage has come to an end.

The hearings into misconduct allegations regarding the accounting professionals involved concluded last week.

Over four weeks, a panel heard complaints from the Accounting Investigation and Disciplinary Body against the nation's largest audit firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, former finance director David Donnelly and Transbus subsidiary financial controller Ian Shelton.

It has not been plain sailing for Cameron Scott, the AIDB's executive counsel.

The complaint against Shelton, that he had behaved dishonestly, was dismissed on the first day of PwC's hearings (his case had been heard earlier). That would have been enough to throw anyone off their stride and Scott and his QC Patrick Lawrence also dropped a key complaint against PwC.

That could prove expensive. PwC lawyers said that the firm was seeking costs in relation to the defence of that claim. The body, unlike predecessor, the Joint Disciplinary Scheme, provides for costs, which could run into the tens of thousands.

PwC has attracted most of the attention in regard to the case and was initially accused of two things: that it should have expressed concern as to whether Mayflower could continue as a going concern when there were issues over financing in 2002; and that it should have conducted a walk-through analysis of Mayflower's invoice discounting facility.

The case on invoice discounting fell apart fairly comprehensively after Shelton, accused over similar issues, was cleared, meaning the firm faces only the first charge.

The tribunal has raised a number of issues, not least the whereabouts of Transbus's former FD, David Berry. Although Berry had been available for preliminary interviews with the companies investigation branch of the Department of Trade and Industry, the forensic team from Grant Thornton, hired by HSBC to look into Mayflower, could not reach him. 'We are unable to interview Mr Berry who, we were told, had moved to South America,' investigators said.

Among others, the tribunal heard evidence from Emile Woolf, the well-known author of accounting texts and after whom a training body is named.

Lawrence referred to Woolf who, in giving evidence and after looking at their audit papers, showed how PwC's prima facie worries about going concern, were somewhat allayed by the assurances which Mayflower was to receive from the banks.

But Lawrence said none of the assurances could be found in writing.

PwC's own expert witness also accepted a point wholly unhelpful to the firm's cause – that the reasonable auditor considering the going concern issue should have had regard to the fact that prospective lenders were concerned with the company's inability to maintain an acceptable cash flow.

Later on he also conceded that PwC should have given more attention to the risk that Mayflower would breach its loan covenants with major financiers, as this was relevant to the going concern issue.

Woolf also came under attack from PwC.

KPMG auditor Michael Ashley appeared for PwC and was similarly scrutinised by the AIDB.

The process appears to have been a bruising one for many concerned, with PwC's QC Michael Pooles being particularly scornful of the AIDB case.

Referring to the 'red flags', which the AIDB alleged should have given the firm cause to worry about whether Mayflower could continue as a going concern, Pooles said: 'They're not even yellow flags... this is a company which has its tough time, is well-managed, is investing hard, is still paying its dividends and still pays its dividend in June 2003.

'It was going through expansion into new and interesting areas... at the same time relocating and modernising, which involved capital investment of a significant amount.'

Neither analysts nor non-executives nor any other groups picked up the issues that the AIDB says PwC should have detected, Pooles said.

In closing, Pooles added: 'When you refresh your memories as to the process of questioning of the individual members of the PwC team, is that whenever Mr Lawrence

sought to dig down into their underlying work, he rapidly received some very detailed and unchallenged answers...which he rapidly departed from...'

Pooles argued that PwC had looked at the issues thoroughly, saying that Mayflower was a company that continued to make a profit 'to the bitter end'.

'The highly experienced board of directors and the highly experienced team of auditors did not have significant concerns and neither did the banks as is made clear by any objective analysis,' Pooles said.

As for Donnelly, the complaint against him is that he failed to disclose a shortfall in Falkirk during a delicate period, to the board, to the auditors and to the banks.

He placed heavy reliance on his finance director Ian Duffin, in control at Mayflower subsidiary Transbus.

Donnelly's lawyer, Ben Hubble, argued that he had failed to disclose the losses as early as he could have done because he was waiting for further information from Duffin.

'Until such time as the investigation was complete, the view of Donnelly was that it was inappropriate to go to the auditors,' Hubble told the panel.

The AIDB's own witness, Woolf, himself admitted that there were no grounds for complaint against Donnelly, in a move that could be telling for the AIDB's chances of success on that front.

The panel will sit in January to listen to arguments about possible fines or punishments, but no date for judgment has yet been set. It may take a little while longer, then, before the Mayflower episode reaches its final stage.

Permalink to this story
www.computeractive.co.uk/2167334
Posted at 02/6/2006 15:25 by lowtrawler
JakNife

As I recall it you were attacked on 2 fronts:

1. You had previous "form" with Anomolous who had offered to support SoySoy and (I may be wrong in this) you started to post on the mfw board only by following Anomolous around. From what I could see, you persistently attacked Anomolous presumably in a similar running feud to the one we are witnessing with SoySoy. I can recall that a number of unsupported allegations were made against you to which you took exception. The allegations against you were persistent and serious.
2. You were rubbished for suggesting nothing would come from SoySoys efforts.

I can understand why you would be upset at the former but your persistence has been directed towards the latter. Having provided advice that soysoy was wasting his time, surely it is his business whether he chooses to take your advice or not? Constantly attacking on this front does nothing to address the main issue of unsupported allegations being made against you.

Those allegations are now several years old and typical of bulletin Board patter. Once made, they are usually forgotten about by the following day never mind several years down the line. If you can't accept that, you really shouldn't post on bulletin boards.

All I am saying is that the reasoning behind your pursuit of soysoy is misdirected and should be put behind you. I think soysoy should be left to finalise the work he has done whether you believe there has been value in it or not.
Posted at 03/2/2006 11:25 by ecomkid
well atleast things are moving on the railways fiasco ... so you never know, something might hapedn at MFW.
but yes frankly, I dont see any money at all returned to private shareholders.
Posted at 10/1/2006 12:37 by emptyend
As it happened, I also held BGY too.....on the basis that nuclear was a crucial plank of energy policy. Right on the long-term view but in the meantime the shares went up the swannee as the Government blew with the wind on the issue.

My main investments thoughout recent years have been in oil companies where I have met or talked with all the key management players and, in most cases, in companies where the management's equity stake is high.....so that they suffer along with shareholders in the event they screw up.

Sadly I had met none of the BGY management [might have been different if I had!]....and I'd only met someone just below board level at MFW [who had underwhelmed]......so....lesson learned [even though it does indeed restrict the investment universe!]

ee
Posted at 14/4/2005 09:04 by ecomkid
as it is, MFW is indeed a dead delisted stock.

why give up hope, if there is a chance that you can salvage a little bit from it ? There is no harm in trying . IMO
Posted at 11/2/2005 00:42 by scribbler101
JakNife - You talk much sense, but also much "Can't Recommend A Purchase", as the analyst said about the Maxwell Mirror float.

If we did not have limited liabiliry we would not have bought MFW shares.
Posted at 20/1/2005 17:57 by soysoy
VERY OLD POST BUT THOUGHT OF INTEREST

Upside - 29 Mar'04 - 13:32 - 4260 of 4493


Here's some news for shareholders.... (from M o n e y A M)...

"Three directors could divi up £2.2m between them as board exodus announced

Three senior directors of Mayflower Corporation PLC could share up to 2.2 mln stg in compensation following their shock departure from the engineering and bus and coach manufacturer.

The group, which is currently is discussions with its bankers about a refinancing package, also announced that it had unearthed 'accounting irregularities' in its TransBus division, although a spokeswoman for the company stressed that the directors' departures were not as a result of this discovery.

Chief executive John Simpson, who estbalised Mayflower in 1989 when he injected some of his own business assets into the company, finance director David Donnelly and joint managing director John Fleming will all be leaving the group in April. Chairman Rupert Hambro has also indicated that he will leave once a successor is found.

According to the last set of published acccounts -- for the year to Dec 2002 -- the three executives received combined remuneration of 1.1 mln stg, with John Simpson the highest paid director with a basic salary of 487,000 stg.

Under the terms of their service contracts, they can each be eligible for compensation of up to two years salary if their contracts are terminated by the company. This could mean total compenation of about 2.2 mln stg, with Simpson in line for a pay-off of about 974,000 stg.

The group was not immediately available for comment, but the company spokeswoman said the final decision over the level of compensation had yet to be agreed.

Their departures are understood to have precipitated by disgruntled shareholders and institutions who have had a rocky ride with the company over the past few years.

In February, the company issued its second profit warning in two months, once again citing problems at its TransBus unit. Profits for the year to Dec 2003 are now expected to be around 6 mln stg. Last year it posted a profit of 25.3 mln stg. The shares have fallen from a 'high' of 36 pence over the past twelve months and today they opened 2-3/4 pence lower at 6-1/2 -- a new all-time low.

The directors will be replaced by Alan Jamieson, who was appointed as chief

restructuring officer in February, and Bruce Wright. They will be appointed group chief executive and finance director respectively.

Jamieson is a veteran restructuring specialist and a former employee of PricewaterhouseCoopers, while Wright has held management positions with Chubb PLC, Kwik-Fit Holdings, First Choice Holidays PLC and B&Q.

'It was felt that a new management team could push through the necessary changes and speed up the refinancing negotiations,' the spokeswoman told AFX News this morning.

The group has been trying to negotiate a refinancing for some time and recently warned that it would have to make a 'considerable write-down' in its MVS German business.

Today the group said the accounting irregularities at TransBus, relating to delays in passing on payments from customers to one of the group's finance providers, would mean an increase in net debt of about 20 mln stg -- pushing the year-end figure up to close on 200 mln stg. This may put the group close to breaching its banking covenants.


Mayflower shares dived 37.8% to 6.75p. "
Posted at 17/4/2004 14:52 by soysoy
Mayflower Corporation (MFW)
Sector: Automobiles



Company Summary | Profit & Loss | Balance Sheet | Cash Flow | Key Ratios



COMPANY SUMMARY


COMPANY LISTING DATA

SEDOL 0800222
ISIN GB0008002221
Market Segment MAIN
Segment SEAQ
Main Indices
Country of register England
Currency UK Pounds
Market Cap (M) (£) 0.00
NMS 75,000
Shares in issue (M) 357
Year Listed 1991-09-03
Previous Close 0.00p

DIVIDENDS DATA 2002 2001

Interim Dividend 1.50p 1.50p
Final Dividend
0.75p 1.50p
Total Dividend
2.25p 3.00p

KEY DATES

Latest Final XD Date
n/a
Latest Final Pay Date n/a
Year End
2002-12-31

£ (Millions) £ (Millions)
PROFIT AND LOSS DATA
2002 2001
Turnover
623.10 647.30
Operating Profit / (Loss)
17.50 5.60
Net Interest
(17.60) (20.50)
Pretax Profit
2.80 (31.80)
Post Tax Profits
(2.80) (29.60)
Total Dividend Paid
(8.00) (7.80)
Retained Profit / (Loss) for the financial year
(18.00) (40.50)
EPS (Basic)
(3.10)p (12.00)p
EPS (Diluted)
(3.10)p (12.00)p
EPS (Adjusted)
4.20p 5.50p
DPS 2.25p 2.91p

BALANCE SHEET 2002 2001
Fixed Assets


Intangible Assets
227.70
233.80
Tangible Assets
136.70
132.70
Fixed Investments
1.00
0.60
Total Fixed Assets
365.40
367.10

Current Assets


Stocks
73.60
80.40
Debtors
75.60
86.90
Cash At Bank & In Hand
8.60
65.20
Total Assets
523.20
599.60

Liabilities

Creditors: Amount Due Within 1 yr
234.00
167.00
Net Current Assets
(76.20)
65.50
Creditors: Amount Due After 1 Yr
78.40
265.00
Total Liabilities
326.30
444.80
Net Assets
196.90
154.80

Capital & Reserves


Called Up Share Capital
17.90
13.10
Share Premium Account
155.70
96.30
Other Reserves
11.30
11.30
Profit & Loss Account
(17.10) 6.20
Shareholders Funds 167.80 126.90
Minority Interests 29.10 27.90

CASH FLOW
2002 2001
Net Cash In / Out Flow From Operating Activities
54.40 51.30
Returns On Investment & Servicing of Finance
(24.30) (18.90)
Corporation Tax Paid
(3.20) (5.10)
Acquisitions & Disposals
(1.20) (5.30)
Equity Dividend Paid
(9.20) (10.30)
Issue of Ordinary Shares
n/a n/a
Increase/Decrease In Cash
(4.20) (17.90)

RATIOS

PE ratio
n/a Pre-tax profit per share 0.78p
Dividend yield
0.00% Operating Cash Flow per share 15.24p
Cash increase / decrease per share
(1.18)p Operating Margin
2.81%
PEG
n/a Dividend Cover (1.38)
EPS Growth n/a Net Asset Value per share 55.15p
Dividend Per Share Growth (25.00)% ROCE (9.09)%
Sales per share 174.54p
Posted at 20/2/2004 18:34 by harrycash
stayed of the board today, not much point really, pity to see the likes of goonergeorge 'coming out of the woodwork' saying, 'I told you so' and now 'how shxt MFW are, etc, etc; hopefully he lost his shirt on his MFW holding but unlikely he holds stocks (any).

glad to see a few of you got out without getting 'hammered' to badly, unfortunately the majority were not so lucky? difficult to believe hvs remains
relatively confident, but then he always was but not sure of his 'holding' so the loss/gain would probaly not have been to bad either way; hopefully this should be a lesson in how not to hold a stock just because you think you can't be wrong, albeit a costly lesson.

anyway, an update on MFW, this likely to be my last posting as I no longer have an interest in them.

my opinion, for what its worth, and after endless discussions and number crunching today, is that MFW will survive but possibly not in respect of shareholder value; PWC are within MFW as their auditors and are responsible for the 'write downs', obviously they would not sign off the accounts without this disclosure, hence yesterdays profit warning; contrary to the Standard article, the 'in house' consultant works for MFW and not PWC, he was employed by MFW to carry out the restructuring of MFW, this aspect is difficult but ongoing; I don't now believe they will go into receivership and will survive as long as their lenders support them, this sounds obvious, but as long as MFW can pay the 'juice' their OK; both banks and bondholders, although not happy, have accepted their own auditors analysis that MFW going forward is viable; you have to remeber both these group's take preference in the pecking order at the cost to shareholder value.

I could say there's no more bad news but the write downs, certainly in Germany, which I would guess could come in at 20M, sound awful; don't forget this is not a loss in cash terms just a reduction in the company value (book) carried forward (as you would devalue a 10k car after you had it for a while but don't want to}; there may be other minor sums but obviously these add up and they were unwise to give the reduced guidance of 16M in December, they should, in their own words, just have given 'downward guidance with no figures'; yesterdays 'bombshell' would not then have been a 'second' profit warning in two months.

Only good news will help MFW going forward, this may be thin on the ground, but hopefully it will turn up sooner rather than later. Believe it or not I'm more optimistic on MFW than I was on Monday, it could be the real shxt is now out of the way, but don't hold me to that?????

Good luck all, been nice knowing most of you?????????

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com