Mercantile Ports & Logis... Share Discussion Threads

[mount teide] 09/6/2017 10:11

So after raising £72m via IPO to build what is essentially a real estate asset, and £49m of bank debt(which according to company forecast should now be 97% drawn down, with a £6.4m annual interest payment running!), and £37m in a recent placing; the company considers it acceptable to provide shareholders with just ONE photographic update of construction progress in a year and, one written update in the last nine months.

Scandalously, the photographic update confirmed all land reclamation had stopped between mid June 2016 and Jan 2017, while the piling had stopped between mid September 2016 and Jan 2017. The March 2017 written update confirmed MPL had achieved the grand total of 3.8% of the end Q1/2017 land reclamation target, MPL told the market it expected to achieve in the Placing and Open Offer Circular and, around 10% of the piling/berth construction.

Which today has resulted in a market cap of circa £22m, just six months after raising a further £37m from II's and PI's. Can't wait to see the cash burn over the last 12 months - particularly, after last years debacle, where £16.6m of cash and debt draw down were mysteriously lost and then miraculously found in the space of two weeks but, not reported to the market until three months later. I hope Grant Thornton takes them to task this year and shareholders get an accurate cash and debt position forecast for the end of June 2017 in the soon too be announced Prelims.

In light of the above and the fact that the same executive management are still in their jobs while presiding over an investment disaster that has seen the share-price plunge 97.6% since IPO, and over 90% since the debt was raised, and nearly 50% since the recent placing, the market might ask the very reasonable questions:

Where are the board resignations?

Where are the II's demanding management accountability?

What have the NED's being doing for their near £300k in fees since IPO?

Why did the Nomad allow the company to put out the statement in October 2016 to raise further funds - "work has continued since October 2015 without material interruption" when the company knew full well there was no land reclamation work going on whatsoever between June 2016 and Jan 2017: a period during which they reassured the market in an effort to get their hands on another £37m, they expected to achieve the reclamation of a further 65 acres(a physical impossibility since they were not carrying out ANY reclamation work whatsoever, throughout the entire period!).

[diku] 08/6/2017 21:38

phowdo...stuffed brown envelopes above or below the table?...

[mount teide] 08/6/2017 21:26

orin - following research, it has come to the attention of one II, that if he attempted to take legal action against the company/directors at some point in the future, it would probably end up in an Indian court, for which he has no appetite whatsoever.

I am increasingly of the opinion, the II's will try and avoid any confrontation should their 'investments' end in the way we consider is inevitable. Consequently, we would expect them to use a damage limitation strategy to protect their reputations first and foremost. I have investments in some of the companies two of the largest II's in MPL have as major holdings in their funds - some have gone up 400%+ in 2/3 years - so losing everything at MPL, while irritating could probably be largely 'lost' in terms of the overall performance of the funds they manage.

Effectively, letting the management get away with the loss of over £110m of shareholders funds to save their own reputations would probably be a small price to pay. I am sure each could effortlessly write an entirely plausible and eloquent analysis of why the loss of their 'investment' in MPL could not have been reasonably foreseen and, put the matter down to experience.

[orinocor] 08/6/2017 20:40

Great series of posts MT. Do we know the identity of the fund managers who supported the 10p placing? These people are in charge of people's pensions and if they have just thrown over £30 million at this without doing any due diligence there should be no hiding place. They have to be accountable and, you know what, if we make them accountable just maybe they'll take legal action against Skil/Mercantile

[beeks of arabia] 08/6/2017 20:01

Why say in 30 words what you can say in a thousand, eh MT?

[mount teide] 08/6/2017 19:12

PJ 1 - Following the huge increase in construction cost for what is a much reduced port specification, we believe there is no realistic Port revenue and profit model that could achieve a result capable of paying the interest on the bank debt, never mind any of the capital.

Consequently, in our opinion it is highly likely there will another attempt to get a further placing away, to prolong the inevitable: the cash running out and the Banks stepping in to take over the assets. The last Shareholders Circular for the £37m Placing and Open offer laid the ground work to prepare the market for such a scenario.

The six man board with £300k of annual jet set travel and luxury hotel expenses to 'protect' and huge salaries for doing what two experienced industry executives could comfortably achieve without breaking sweat, it is inevitable this 'management' will attempt to extend the tracks for the extremely lucrative lifestyle gravy train they have set up for themselves at shareholders expense, for as long as possible.

What would be the excuse given next time to raise cash? Try:

An extensive high spec warehousing facility to service an MOU with a leading(but not yet named) international retail group( that after the cash raise never subsequently reaches the stage of a contract).

A chill store operation for the storage and preparation of fridge container goods.

An all weather grain handling and storage facility

They might even get the bellows out to try and breathe some new life into the old ship repair facility

I could name a dozen or more others but don't wish to give them ideas.


PJ1 - the executive team have proved themselves to us to be rank amateurs, totally out of their depth: at least two of the three have extensive outside business interests that make it impossible in our view, for them to give the MPL business the focus it needs, even if they knew what they were doing.

The II's have been absolute mugs to have let them get way with this debacle for 7 years. They don't seem to understand that with the huge increase in build coast together with the reduced port specification, there is now no port business model that we can conceive that will enable shareholders to see the return of any of their investment - the equity is now effectively worthless.

At least two of the executive management do not have the industry experience or commercial knowledge to see that, while the third who sits in the shadows overseeing this investment disaster for shareholders is rarely heard from and never seen, despite being the most senior member of the executive team. When i put this to a major II, he too could't believe how Gandhi as a senior executive was totally inaccessible for shareholders: so with his investment clout why has he not elected to take this further. For someone who is coming round to the view this could be a fraud, he is still very nervous about the suggestion of sending in an independent marine civil engineering consultant to carry out a full analysis of the cash burn and asset value to date.

Our view is that we can only lead the II shareholders to water, if they choose not drink, then they have no one to blame but themselves if they lose all their investors funds - which is a CERTAINTY with MPL in our opinion.

As mentioned previously, i never short but, this is one company that i can say with total confidence is going to end up in administration, with the banks taking over the port assets and investors losing everything.



Don't let any of the management team suggest to the market that a 360m double sided lightweight construction open jetty is similar in capacity and commercial potential to a 1000m fixed quay wall. It is not in any way comparable. One is currently being built at Karanja to handle small coasters while the other is capable of handling large deep sea vessels. As a consequence, management is now speccing small mobile cranes for the jetty, rather than the high capacity ship to shore cranes mentioned previously with the fixed quay wall.

When operating with an open jetty with small vessels berthed on either side, the cargo handling productivity is massively lower than that achieved with a fixed quay wall and, much more costly to carry out.

This is due to primarily but not limited to:

* Cargo running distance from the vessel on the jetty to the storage yard and vice-versa is at least twice as long and, necessitates the multiple handling and wheeled transfer of all cargo, often through sections of the jetty where other vessels may be working and, so also carries significant safety implications.

* Cargo work to/from vessels on a jetty has to be undertaken on a platform that has a working surface area much less than half that of a fixed quay: which allows cargo to be moved directly into storage via lift truck from the ships side, without impacting the operation of other vessels being worked along the quay.

* When a working ship needs to meet a tidal window to leave, in order to avoid a lengthy delay on the quay until the next flood tide provides sufficient water depth to safely depart; a fixed quay allows the 'dumping' of cargo close to the quay area for movement into storage later, to facilitate the much faster discharge of the vessel. This is a frequent practise at many tidal river terminals with a fixed quay but is not possible on an open jetty, where the working room is too restrictive.

* Should a vessel lose control approaching an open piled jetty and make heavy contact resulting in structural damage to the jetty platform/piling: dependent on where it occurred, it could result in part or all of the working jetty becoming temporarily unavailable for handling vessels until repairs have been effected, which could take weeks or even months. With a much stronger fixed quay the risk is minimal and, at worse would only affect a very small section, enabling cargo work to continue along the rest of the quay without interruption.

Everything in life comes at a price - if you fail to do your research, don't be surprised if the consequences come back to bite you.

Shareholders should have expected as a minimum to have seen a significant enhancement to the original port specification for the astonishing additional sum of £37m, since it is some 65% of ITD's original tender contact value for the construction of the Port.

To now deliver a hugely scaled back low cost open jetty and reduced land footprint is totally unacceptable, since this specification should have generated a material reduction in the build cost, not a request from shareholders for another £37m.

AIOHO/DYOR

[phowdo] 08/6/2017 11:07

Stuffed brown envelopes will ensure this party goes on for another 12 months.

[pj 1] 08/6/2017 10:50

If it is as fraudulent as we suspect then will they bother with any Results, or will the game continue as they hope to get another placing away in the future?

[mount teide] 07/6/2017 11:04

Some interesting recent developments at JNPT - source Journal of Commerce Magazine and Lloyd's List Intelligence.

The construction of JNPT's Container Terminal 4 is expected to become operational slightly ahead of schedule in early 2018 and, will double the overall capacity of the Port to 10.0m teus.

Last year, as a result of the Global Port Groups that operate terminals at JNPT pushing the Government to introduce the latest container terminal operating systems and automated Customs Clearance practices at the Port, huge productivity gains are being reported and congestion eliminated at both the sea and road entry gates.

Following the introduction of the Direct Port Delivery(DPD) System and other productivity boosting measures, including gate automation; congestion and extended container dwell times racking up large port storage charges are no longer a fact of life for previously hard-pressed shippers using the container terminals at JNPT.

"A major milestone of the past year is the achievement of zero congestion at JNPT port area and approach roads." JNPT said in a recent statement.

"DPD imports are now delivered directly to customers within 48hrs of landing from vessel obviating the need for moving these container to off-site container freight stations which involves long delays and extra costs"

The commercial impact is being felt at Gateway Distriparks which operates the largest of the 30 container freight stations on the Uran Peninsula. Gateway suffered a 37% drop in profits in the year to March 2017. In Jan - Mar 2017 they saw a further 7% drop in revenues despite the JNPT terminals finishing the year with a record breaking 4.5m teu throughput.

The Port reckons the DPD system had reduced customs clearance times to such an extent, logistics costs per container have been reduced by more than 75% but, more importantly notorious congestion issues at the Port that previously benefited rivals, are no longer a shipper concern, now container dwell times have been hugely reduced because of the various DPD programs.


In light of the above, and the fact the 40 or so the Mumbai Harbour terminals currently handle NO stream transhipment containers from ships destined for JNPT, compare this with the 'research' and 'strategy' of the MPL management(which is either clueless or a clear attempt to mislead):


MPL Shareholders Circular - 31 October 2016 - Placing and Open Offer

Market and macro-dynamics

The proximity of the Facility to JNPT is a key factor that the Directors believe will contribute to the Company’s success. JNPT is classed as a Major Port and is the primary gateway for container shipments in India, accounting for approximately 55% of all such shipments.

Demand continues to outstrip its capacity, with congestion currently a significant problem at JNPT, despite JNPT’s stated aim to become one of the top 10 ports in the world by 2020 with a capacity goal of over 10 million TEUs.

The Directors expect that the continued expansion of JNPT will present significant opportunities for the Company. In particular, the Directors believe that the Company will benefit from the Facility being able to offer:

• mid-stream discharge and loading of cargo at anchorage whilst vessels wait to berth at JNPT;

• coastal movement of cargos such as containers, cement and other break-bulk cargos servicing end users along the industrialised west coast of India; and

• an integrated, high-tech container freight solution at the Logistics Park, easing congestion issues in the road network around Mumbai and JNPT, when coupled with the coastal movement of cargos.


AIOHO/DYOR

[mount teide] 06/6/2017 17:52

Looking forward to the Preliminary results which i understand are imminent.

Apparently, the Executive 'Management' and their advisors have been working on them for a month. Since the lot of them have not got any senior level Port or Shipping Industry operating experience between them, the results should be treated with extreme caution for investment purposes. Particularly, after last year, where they miraculously managed to lose and find £16.6m between mid June 2016 and the end of June 2016, despite saying in the mid June Prelims that the cash burn and debt drawdown had been as expected during the previous 6 months. Sadly, the market had to wait until the September Interims for this horrendous cash burn forecasting error to be revealed and amended!


In the meantime what shareholders prospective and existing, should take no notice of with regard to the port asset they would be buying into with an investment in this company, is the Website front page pictorial of the port layout design of their only asset under construction, or the '1,000m cargo handling quay and ship to shore cranes' in the accompanying text detailing the berth/cargo handling equipment specification.

Shareholders, will i'm sure be looking forward to confirmation, written and photographic, that the expected Project progress targets detailed in the Shareholders Circular dated 31 October 2016 to raise an additional £37m have been met, after the company's appalling history of don delivery, which has seen the share price fall from 250p at IPO to 6.5p today.


Shareholders Circular:

Subject to the Company being able to secure the Funding by the end of the first quarter of 2017, the Company is working to the following timetable in order to achieve full operational completion of the Facility by the end of the third quarter of 2017:


Expected Progress targets:

By the end of January 2017 the Company expects to have:

• completed the dredging requirement;
• reclaimed 70%(140 Acres) of the land;
• constructed two berths, one of which will be capable of receiving vessels.

Actual Progress Achieved:
* APPROACH CHANNEL & BERTH DREDGING STOPPED DURING H2/2017 MONSOON SEASON
* ZERO LAND RECLAMATION PROGRESS - same 75 acres as reported IN June 2016
* CONSTRUCTED ZERO BERTHS - No berth piling added since the 100m OF Sept 2016


By the end of the Q1/2017 the Company expects to have:

• reclaimed 90%(180 acres) of land
• constructed four berths, three capable of receiving vessels
• entered into commercial agreements with end users.


Actual Progress:
* RECLAIMED 79 ACRES OF LAND - JUST 4% OF THE 105 ACRE TARGET IN 9 MONTHS
* CONSTRUCTED ZERO BERTHS - ADDED JUST A FURTHER 30M of piling SINCE Sept 2016
* NO SIGNED AGREEMENTS - A SINGLE MOU WITH AN OILFIELD MAINTENANCE COMPANY


By the end of the Q2/2017 the Company expects to have:

• completed the balance of reclamation work;
• carried out further ground improvement works;
• constructed the remaining berths, four will be capable of receiving vessels
• completed the sourcing of all necessary equipment.



So in the Preliminary Results shareholders should look out for written confirmation of the following, accompanied by website photo's:

200 ACRES OF LAND RECLAMATION
BERTH PILING COMPLETE - 6 BERTHS CONSTRUCTED - 4 READY TO RECEIVE VESSELS.
ALL PORT CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT SOURCED


The market is always supremely confident of making predictions where MPL is concerned, because of the management's perfect track record of proving their own progress targets to be nothing more than a work of complete fiction.

We predicted that at best 20% of the progress the management expected to achieve by end of Jan 2017 would be made - sadly, even we were shocked to find it was Zero for land reclamation, and about 10% for berth piling.

Our prediction for end of Q2/2017 is:

100 acres of land reclaimed - just 25 acres added in 12 months
Zero berths complete - 200m of jetty piling only - 140m added in 12 months
Zero port cargo handling equipment on site.

This would at best represent around 20% of the expected target for land reclamation and berth piling/construction, while a circa £6.4m a year debt interest payment demand is running!

As mentioned previously, the figure to look out for will be the cash burn since the June 2016 Preliminaries and September 2016 Interims.

The Management travelling expenses should also prove interesting - we have a book going on whether it will be above or below £300k/year or £25k a month. The smart money is on it being above, unless of course they have been able to convince their auditors Grant Thornton(of the £100m Globo AIM fraud fame!), that a decent chunk could be shovelled into the huge general administrative costs.


AIOHO/DYOR

[mount teide] 05/6/2017 19:01

AIM Handbook

Principles of disclosure

An AIM company must take reasonable care to ensure that any information it notifies is not misleading, false or deceptive and does not omit anything likely to affect the import of such information.

General disclosure of price sensitive information

An AIM company must issue notification without delay of any new developments which are not public knowledge which, if made public, would be likely to lead to a significant movement in the price of its AIM securities. By way of example, this may include matters concerning a change in:

— its financial condition;
— its sphere of activity;
— the performance of its business; or
— its expectation of its performance.



Further to the Shareholders CIRCULAR to raise £37m dated 31 October 2016, Jan 2017 Website Photographic Update and March 2017 RNS Project Update:

Port build out performance between June 2016 and March 2017 fell at least 95% short of expectations for Land reclamation and 90% short for Berth piling operations. This likely non performance was known to management from June 2016, since land reclamation work stopped in June 2016 and did not begin again until Jan 2017.

Claiming otherwise in the Shareholders Circular to raise £37m, by stating that reclamation and piling operations had continued without material interruption since Oct 2015 and, embellishing this deception with hugely optimistic land reclamation and berth piling progress targets through to March 2017, smacks of a clear and unambiguous attempt to mislead the market, presumably in order to generate II support for the £37m Placing and Open Offer in November 2016.

If SPL/MPL had stated in the shareholders circular that all land reclamation work had stopped in June 2016(Google Earth and the Company Website provides a wonderful audit trail) and, would not begin again until Jan 2017, and the berth piling would stop after September 2016 and not begin again until Jan 2017 - imagine how that would have been received by the Market approached to support the Placing and Open Offer, particularly since there was a 14% debt interest payment ticking away on the £25-35m of bank debt drawn down at that point in time? And a huge cash burn that bore little resemblance to the asset value of the progress made to that date.

It is clearly no coincidence, that the company failed to provide any photographic progress updates in H2/2016 and only 1 in H1/2017(after providing 8 in H1/2016 - prior to notification of the Placing and Open Offer), because this would have lead to a flood of entirely reasonable questions from shareholders of 'how can the progress targets in the Shareholders Circular be expected to be met WHEN THERE IS NO LAND RECLAMATION OR BERTH PILING GOING ON?

This followed a previous management history, where shareholders were told by RNS that the build out work was progressing on site, only to be find out otherwise after hiring a light aircraft at their own expense to take photographs over the site.


Cenkos, clearly has a responsibility to carry out their own due diligence prior to publication of the Shareholders Circular to ensure that any information in it is not misleading, false or deceptive.


The Principal contacts for Compliance Matters at Cenkos Securities is:

Amber Wood
Nick Bailey

Both are contactable through the following switchboard number 0207 397 8900


If you are unhappy with the behaviour of the Directors and the Nomad with respect to their Compliance with AIM Rules, I would urge you to contact either of the above and the Aim Regulator to support us in holding the individuals responsible to account.



For Reference:

AIM HANDBOOK

AIM company and directors’ responsibility for compliance

An AIM company must:

Have in place sufficient procedures, resources and controls to enable it to comply
with these rules;

Seek advice from its nominated adviser regarding its compliance with these rules whenever appropriate and take that advice into account;

Provide its nominated adviser with any information it reasonably requests or requires in order for that nominated adviser to carry out its responsibilities under these rules and the

AIM Rules for Nominated Advisers, including any proposed changes to the board of directors and provision of draft notifications in advance;

Ensure that each of its directors accepts full responsibility, collectively and individually, for its compliance with these rules.

[pj 1] 05/6/2017 13:16

Almost 12 months since the 'ship repair facility' clanger was dropped, as well as further funding required. I got the impression the ship repair facility was the catalyst for some of the remaining longs to suddenly realise it was just a smoke screen.

Will there be any more 'clangers' in the Results this year, assuming we get them.(16th June last year).

[guernseymoney] 05/6/2017 11:24

Good FT article today on India's banking sector (bad loans are on the up and a drag on the economy).

Nice quote, which made me think of MPL:

"Darker factors were also in play..... many companies were financially undermined by controlling shareholders who siphoned off funds through related entities."

[mount teide] 04/6/2017 23:03

MT...below from your earlier post...what chance some of those emplyees are extended family members?...and who is to know if those business & First class travelling expenses are personal holiday travels or genuine business travels?..

Who knows? - shareholders have learned to underestimate this Executive Board at their peril.

The need to undertake ongoing due diligence post an investment is just as important as prior to an investment imo, as while there may be many honest people in the boardrooms of quoted companies sadly, there is a significant minority that range from fluent liars through to shameless crooks.

Little surprises me any longer - after making an investment in one loss making small cap stock with great assets, i subsequently discovered that the CEO had a Bentley Continental company car, flew first class on company business, held Board meetings in 7 star hotels in Dubai, employed his son as a senior manager, employed a very poorly qualified and clueless woman as the Company Secretary on nearly $500k a year, paid himself via a 7 £figure offshore service agreement, and had given two non execs hefty interest free 6 figure company loans much of which they had subsequently lent back to the company at 14% interest! This was the CEO of a company that had blown through £350m of shareholders funds in 7 years and was still to turn a profit, despite having incredible assets, that he was using mainly to fund his jet set lifestyle and multi £million property portfolio.

Still, they say what goes around comes around - the good lord decided that at 58 years old his time above ground was up, but sadly not before he did the exact same thing to shareholders at the new company he set up.

With respect, we don't need to go to Karanja, the original design specification(which we have) together with detailed site photographs are more than sufficient to evaluate progress or the lack thereof against budgets and timelines.

Frankly, we are totally astonished that more shareholders have not raised a formal complaint to the regulator relating to the oversight of the company by the Board of Directors and Nomad responsible for advising and guiding the company on its obligations.

[pj 1] 04/6/2017 21:47

diku- Nice idea but they wont, only x3 PI;s put their hand in their pocket to fund the aerial photos in 2014. From an initial response of 37 or so.

In fact most of the 37 then continued to advise me I was wasting my time. Really?

azalea and a few others then even reported in here they thought the phots were fakes.

[diku] 04/6/2017 21:38

MT...think the amount of knowledge you have on this sector and the info you post you really ought to make a travel visit to site in question...I am sure PI's who have invested here...collectively would be willing to contribute towards your expenses to get some real insight... If there is anything un towards going on then better to take the board to task with the regulators now while the company is still alive....

[diku] 04/6/2017 21:24

MT...below from your earlier post...what chance some of those emplyees are extended family members?...and who is to know if those business & First class travelling expenses are personal holiday travels or genuine business travels?..



There again, with all construction outsourced to third parties, having 26 permanent employees is totally astonishing.

As a private company we reckon two directors a company secretary and two admin staff would be more than sufficient.

[mount teide] 04/6/2017 21:21

The NED Mr James"i can't comment on that"Sutcliffe, has to date pocketed £270k of shareholders funds during the last 7 years for doing lord knows what from his UK base some 4,000 miles away.

Still yet to buy a single share in the company, despite an eye-watering 96% fall in the share-price; for shareholders its a pity his specialist knowledge and sector expertise is not as good as his impeccable investment judgement.


With the huge increase in project cost to £148m following the change from a fixed quay(the website is still fraudulently misleading investors that it will be a 1,000m fixed quay - ah nostalgia, those were the days!), to a much shortened open jetty with a materially higher fixed operating cost due to the 1.8km average round trip cargo transfer requirement; the time is perhaps appropriate for the II's and Nomad to request that Mr Sutcliffe sits down with the clueless CEO and puts together a revised 3 year Revenue and Profit Projection for the Port, so that shareholders can be given an updated view as to the 'commercial' prospects.

Of course, we would be only too pleased to perform a due diligence check on Mr Sutcliffe's work for other shareholders, by giving it the detailed forensic evaluation a port project costing nearly £110m of shareholders equity funds to date deserves.


AIOHO/DYOR

[mount teide] 04/6/2017 17:46

RNS - Mercantile Ports and Logistics and Karanja Terminal and Logistics Pvt. Ltd Enter into Memorandum of Understanding with Engineering and Logistics Project Execution Company - Mar 27 17

'Mercantile Ports and Logistics, and its wholly owned subsidiary, Karanja Terminal and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. announced that it has entered in to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with an engineering and logistics project execution company.

The agreement will allow for the use of 200 metres of the quay length as an area for handling cargo related to the decommissioning of wellhead platforms for the gas industry. It also includes plans to develop a yard area at the port which is expected to be ready in time for commencement of port operations. The commercial terms relating to the use of the facility are to be agreed between the parties concerned within 60 days from the date of signing of the MoU.'


So, we are well past the 60 day deadline to agree commercial terms and no news!

Two hundred metres of jetty will be around 55% of the usable length of one side - or around 27.5% of the total usable length.

With £6.3m of annual debt interest payments now falling due, £2.2m of annual admin costs and £6.4m of annual debt capital repayments starting next year - i predict that shareholders will not see any port user agreements announced with sufficiently detailed commercial terms, to enable even port professionals to ascertain an estimate of the profit contribution.

The strategy will be to keep the first class expense account and 1.5 day a month £175k gravy train rolling for as long as possible.

The naivety of the II's who supported the £37m cash raise never cease to amaze. One i spoke to recently who shall remain nameless to save his blushes, actually said three months AFTER the £37m cash raise; "i don't want the management to scrimp on this port project, if they need more money to complete the port and logistics facility properly, they should come and let us know'

Clueless, totally clueless!

With due diligence like that the II's deserve to lose all their money, because never mind all the red flags flying around the entire perimeter of Karanja, you could give the average grammar school student the information and data necessary to generate a Port revenue and profit projection for the various types of stream transhipment and dry bulk coaster cargo that the revised Karanja port specification could reasonably expect to annually handle - and they would likely have little difficulty coming to the conclusion that this extremely high cost, low spec port project will be a commercial disaster and is totally un-investible.

[mount teide] 04/6/2017 15:49

Indeed - Sanderstead

Clearly, one of the reasons Business and First Class Travel expenses are stratospheric at £280k a year. How they have the nerve to spend an average of £5,600 a week on travel expenses, when all the management have company cars is staggering.

I do not know of one UK port terminal with remotely comparable Board and Management travelling expenses. Any Chairman worth his fee, would quite rightly take the Executive Board to task if they presented an average of £24k a month for travel expenses when reviewing the accounts in the monthly board pack.

To have administrative costs totalling some £2.21m for a company with 26 total employees (Directors, management and admin staff) is astonishing.

There again, with all construction outsourced to third parties, having 26 permanent employees is totally astonishing.

As a private company we reckon two directors a company secretary and two admin staff would be more than sufficient.


Dover, Europe's busiest short sea port with a turnover of £60m, last year saw the NED'S paid £26k each(up from £15k in 2013) and, only the two executive Directors of the eight strong board earned more than £80K. Dover's total board compensation package for 2015 came to £626k.

MPL's executive board(i use that phrase in its loosest possible sense), who will this year report their seventh year of £0 operational turnover and, an eyewatering £6.4m of annual debt interest payments, cheerfully in 2016 managed to rack up travelling expenses of £280k, which when added to Pavan's, Jay's and Nikhil's Directors fees totalled £680k; for delivering a greater than 90% destruction of shareholder value in just 12 months, together with an 'invoice' for £37m million to 'protect' the 4% of shareholder value remaining post IPO.

How the II's who have bore the brunt of this catastrophic shareholder investment destruction have not removed the lot of them and put in a small team of highly experienced Industry professionals and their own Marine Civil Engineering Consultant is a complete mystery.

[fft] 04/6/2017 13:04

Pavan doesn't need to be invited over. He lives close to Croydon.

[waterloo01] 04/6/2017 12:07

MT, the research into Pavan is quite shocking. I was prepared to accept he was just a fool and not behind the industrial thievery, but I think his actions, while taking £175k a year puts him squarely in the frame. Gandhi, Jay and Pavan should all be invited over and arrested.

[mount teide] 03/6/2017 23:46

CEO Pavan Bakhshi - according to the MPL website Pavan joined Skil Group FROM Mumbai based Asker Capital, where he WAS MD of their Indian Operations.


This is very interesting because according to Company Records updated to 2nd June 2017, Pavan has not left Asker Capital - he is STILL one of the three Directors of this busy financial services Mumbai based company:

ASKAR CAPITAL ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED

In fact, it would appear even Askar Capital isn't enough to keep him fully employed, that is, outside of the 1.5 days a month Jay says he sees him actively engaged on MPL business, because Pavan while CEO of SPL/MPL has also found the time to set up a second Mumbai based financial services company in July 2015:

HKB HOLDINGS ADVISORY LLP

which he runs as a founder Director with two other Mumbai based financial sector executives.

Both companies appear to be involved in the raising and deployment of proprietary capital for Indian businesses and infrastructure projects.

AIMHO/DYOR

[mount teide] 03/6/2017 22:29

In light of the fact that shareholders are still yet to be advised of Nikhil Gandhi's subscription shares being issued, and the funds deposited in the Guernsey Bank Account - Shareholders might be interested to note the following:


Shareholders Circular - 31 October 2016 - Placing and Open Offer

Risk Factors

Effect on the Group’s relationship with SKIL Global and Nikhil Gandhi.

The Transaction(Placing and Open Offer) will result in the Relationship Agreement being terminated until the NG Subscription Shares are issued which will reduce the strength of the formal relationship between the Group, SKIL Global and SKIL Infrastructure Limited.

The Relationship Agreement will be revived upon the issue of the NG Subscription Shares and continue for so long as Nikhil Gandhi’s personal guarantee in relation to the Debt Facility remains in full force and effect. Although Nikhil Gandhi, in his capacity as Chairman and shareholder of the Company, is still committed to the completion of the Facility, he may, in the future, seek to terminate his personal guarantee granted in relation to the Debt Facility which could affect the future relationship between the Group and its secured lenders under the Debt Facility, which may have a material adverse effect on the Group’s financial condition and results of operations.