Tanfield Share Discussion Threads

[vauch] 20/9/2018 08:19

Most likely not and it looks like good night tan.

Someone had not checked every line of the agreement it would seem.

[semper vigilans] 20/9/2018 08:02

Bit of a mess!
Will TAN’s lawyers at time of the agreement have questions to answer?

[multiplural] 20/9/2018 07:35

It seems that one could argue that Charles Brooks did not fulfill his fiduciary obligations while at Tanfield, but was "bought" by his coming employer Mr. Ahern to do a deal favourable to Ahern.
"
It should be noted that, whilst the preferred interest position is described in the circular above as being "$50,000,000 (which may be subject to adjustment)", the actual value of the preferred interest position, after adjustment, was materially reduced to only $22.5m which, in addition to a preferred return (2.5% annual interest) of $2.8m, totals $25.3m and underpins the planned impairment of the investment value to GBP19.1m ($25.3m). The Board acknowledge that as the final value of the preferred interest position was to be based on specific assets and liabilities calculated on the day of closing, it would have been impossible to accurately forecast a specific value, hence being subject to adjustment. However, in February 2014, when the remaining Board members, whose employment did not transfer to Snorkel in October 2013 (comprising of three non-executive Directors) (the "Remaining Board Members"), became aware of the level of adjustment that was to be made to the $50m preferred interest position, they were highly critical that a more accurate estimate of the likely value, or a range of likely values, was not provided in the circular and felt that this may have resulted in a level of ambiguity in the value of the proposed transaction.

The Board are firm in their belief that the intent of both the Remaining Board Members at the time of proposing the transaction and that of the shareholders who authorised the Company to enter into the agreements at a General Meeting, was not that the preferred interest position was only valid until 30 September 2018, and after which, a call option could be exercised without payment of the preferred interest position. Furthermore, the Board are not of the belief that the agreements that were entered into state that the preferred interest position has an expiry date, as there is no mention of an explicit or defined expiry date in the agreements. Therefore, the Board are resolute that the agreements require payment of the preferred interest position should Xtreme seek to exercise the call option.

The Board acknowledge that inconsistencies exist in key documents that were prepared at the time and therefore they cannot rule out that these inconsistencies may have led to a level of ambiguity, but caveat that if ambiguity does exist as a result of the inconsistencies, this has no bearing on the intent of the agreements in the eyes of the Remaining Board Members of Tanfield and the Company's shareholders at the time of authorising the transaction.

Whilst there is no formal dispute with Xtreme currently, the Board has inferred from its correspondence with Mr Brooks that this may occur in due course. Should Xtreme attempt to exercise its call option and dispute that the adjusted preferred interest position is payable, the Board will vigorously defend its position that the preferred interest is payable.

The Board of Tanfield is continuing to seek legal advice in relation to this matter and will update shareholders when appropriate."

[grabster] 20/9/2018 07:33

multiplural - if aggrieved Tanfield shareholders collectively take legal action against the way the directors have handled this, their case will also include references to your own role as evidenced on this thread (the FCA already have copies, so no point you backtracking and editing or deleting your past posts (which itself would indicate recognition of guilt and complicity).

[grabster] 20/9/2018 07:11

And now - as reality dawns - it turns nasty:


"Charles Brooks, the former Chief Financial Officer of Tanfield Group Plc who had significant input in to the key documents pertaining to the joint venture between Tanfield and Xtreme and whose employment transferred following the joint venture and who is now the Chief Financial Officer at both Snorkel and Xtreme, has made assertions that directly contradict the Board's understanding and belief as to the intent and meaning of the agreements that were entered in to."

"The assertions made by Mr Brooks, is that the preferred interest position, described in the excerpt from the circular below as being "$50,000,000 (which may be subject to adjustment)" is only applicable until 30 September 2018, after which date the value will be nil."

[pcid] 11/9/2018 08:31

What a sad and tragic outcome. One time leaders in electric vehicle technology, but did very little with it. Transferred the technology to Smith Electric for peanuts and have taken a very passive role since.

A very ineffective - no useless management - who have thrown it all away and with it a vast amount of shareholder money... (including mine)

[sarahbudd] 11/9/2018 00:00

Quite disgraceful what's happened here

[eke] 06/9/2018 17:17

Guess what!Walmart have just ordered 30 electric truck from Tesla.A very big shame about this company....

[multiplural] 06/9/2018 11:30

There is nothing new here from last report. The priority amount is still $25,3 equalling 12 p per share. We can obviously hope for some add on value from the call option, but still the market price now below expected cash value.
There is your spin.

[ddevine] 23/8/2018 18:02

oh dear multi was only a matter of time before yr constant ramping was called out

[buywell3] 21/8/2018 15:04

buywell3 - 13 Oct 2016 - 01:09:10 - 1980 of 2273 TANFIELD GROUP -- 2014 - TAN
The chart suggest sub 10p coming again

Needs to get back above 15p to stop that happening

[buywell3] 21/8/2018 15:03

buywell3 - 13 Oct 2016 - 01:09:10 - 1980 of 2273 TANFIELD GROUP -- 2014 - TAN
The chart suggest sub 10p coming again

Needs to get back above 15p to stop that happening

[multiplural] 10/8/2018 16:04

Nice article on Snorkel products:

[multiplural] 13/7/2018 09:32

As you might know from the news issued by Tanfield, the book value have declined. At the time of your quote the statement was correct. You still have not mentioned why you are so interested in this. It seems rather strange since you don't own any shares. I am not from Newcastle.

[grabster] 13/7/2018 09:19

"Even if he should end up buying at the book value we are still looking at double todays price." (multiplural talking of a 100% increase last year when the price was nearing 16p, since when it has lost nearly a third of its value, taking it back to where it was two years ago.

I'm not from Nevada. Are you from Newcastle? ;-)

[multiplural] 13/7/2018 08:14

Grabster, why are you so interested in Tanfield. I take it for granted that you are not a shareholder here? You wouldn't by any chance reside in Nevada :-)

[multiplural] 13/7/2018 07:47

Grabster, read the last two messages from the company again. The minimum value is now set at 12p. That is if no Ebit multipel is added to the prefferred interest. If you look around the peer group to Snorkel it is evident that with the turnover the have they should have a nice rich Ebit to multiply by 5,5 and add to the total outcome. However, as stated in the second last news item from Tanfield, Ahern have added some surprising costs to the picture to get the ebit below 0 and thus only pay the prefferred interest. I doubt this will be the end picture, but lets see.

[grabster] 13/7/2018 07:24

Well well well. The Snorkel holding is now considered to possibly justify a share price of only 12p - that's a whopping 47.6% downgrade from the 22.9p declared a mere 3 months ago.

Any more downward adjustments to come?

Staunch ramper Multiplural, who has previously rubbished my observations and shamelessly issued reassurances galore, has already conceded that the share price might drop into single digit pence.

Anyone still clinging to a holding in the hope of some positive outcome and taking comfort from Multiplural's guidance is going to lose even more money - and is missing out on better investment growth elsewhere. Is there seriously anyone still holding??

Directors presumably will continue pocketing a monthly paycheque regardless - I haven't heard them volunteer to share investors' pain by suspending their remunerations till the Snorkel proceeds arrive.

[puffintickler] 10/7/2018 14:09

Quite a spread today, 10.2 sell, 11.9 buy. Plays havoc with my portfolio valuation.

[dave224] 22/6/2018 12:27

Think I get it now!

[semper vigilans] 21/6/2018 19:40

The directors must have engaged great lawyers in the first place?

[grabster] 21/6/2018 19:25

May I say - "told you so"?

See my post 2266. None of multiplural's assurances have ever come true.
Tanfield directors - who now squeal about how unfair Mr Ahern is being in doctoring the figures to suit himself, (like they couldn't see that coming? It was bloody obvious to some of us!) have meanwhile presumably continued to pocket their salaries at the expense of investors. And these same directors apparently wish to spend shareholders' cash on legal fees.

Anyone here who has stubbornly refused to believe anything other than the rosy picture repeatedly and dishonestly painted by multiplural, will end up with at best, peanuts, and at worst, nothing. Tanfield I suspect will delist and cease trading, and will do so in a way that leaves any remaining investors having to accept whatever exit cost is involved.