Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Tanfield Group Plc LSE:TAN London Ordinary Share GB00B4QHFM95 ORD 5P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.15 3.54% 4.39 3.80 4.98 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 16:35:06
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Industrial Engineering 0.0 -17.4 -11.0 - 7

Tanfield Share Discussion Threads

Showing 20001 to 20021 of 20075 messages
Chat Pages: 803  802  801  800  799  798  797  796  795  794  793  792  Older
As presented Charles Brooks must be in real trouble. It seems he might have acted on behalf of the buyer ( Ahern) when he was acting as sellers representative while being CFO in Tanfield. I guess they jail this sort of conduct in the states if correct. Ahern have a reputation though as an honest citizen and businessman, I doubt he will try to steal this in a criminal way. Obviously he might try to get away with paying the heavy reduced preferred interest, now some 25M$, but the accounting shenanigans of late should not pass. I guess Snorkel on itself is worth at least the revenue.
So an EBITDA certificate was due every quarter since they started in October 2013 . So we are talking nearly 5 years worth of quarterly certificates and no one noticed or have I misunderstood??
Snorkel - order
Oh, multi. Hear thy soul speak. Of the very instant that thy saw Don, did thy heart fly at his service. Love is like a child, that longs for everything it can come by.
New interview with Don Ahern on Snorkel. On the subject of OEMs and Ahern’s majority acquisition of Snorkel in 2013, has the company become everything he expected it to be? “Almost,” he replies, “We are very pleased with it. We have taken a company that was distressed and was barely operating and was probably within a very short time of not operating. “You could call it ground zero, and now we are annualising around $300 million.”
That chart looks like a ski slope. lol
multi - I don't think anyone ha expressed any doubt about how well Snorkel is doing. Just that its relevance to Tanfield shareholders is now minimal if not zilch.
According to Snorkel CEO things are doing quite well. " Whilst there may be increased commentary on global trade, tariffs and retaliations, we still see an underlying strong demand for aerial equipment in North America, and globally. " See interview here:;utm_campaign=22480&utm_medium=email&elq2=6f2d9468eabb4273a02a287eab29cff8
"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." Arguably either Mr Brooks is lying about what he believes the phrase means or he is admitting he is guilty of not fulfilling his fiduciary obligations while at Tanfield. Some may even suggest he used his position of trust in Tanfield to knowingly swindle the company out of its ownership of the subsidiary. The RNS of 20th September 2013 prepared by Derren Kell and Charles Brooks states that "Tanfield to hold a US $50million preferred interest in new Snorkel entity, Snorkel International Holdings, LLC ("Snorkel International Holdings")" this is only qualified by the statement "Tanfield will retain an initial interest in 49% of Snorkel International Holdings and a preferred interest position of US $50 million (which may be subject to adjustment, as described in the Circular)." If the preferred interest was intended to expire on a certain date this would be a far more important fact in the RNS to mention, indeed emphasise, than that it was "subject to adjustment". Obviously those who signed off the RNS, notably Charles Brooks, did not intend that the preferred interest would ever expire.
I had this stock on my watch list for a decade or more without ever really looking into it. If I recall , originally I put it on as the Electric vehicle division was supposed to be worth more than the shares.... I assumed it was another too good to be true story and kind of ignored them..... So I opened up the RNS this morning whilst thinking to myself "there was something dodgy about these in the past" and then I read this. Now we all understand there is still "something dodgy" about these.....
Just put the 49% on e bay and see what you get!Just a thought
Most likely not and it looks like good night tan. Someone had not checked every line of the agreement it would seem.
Bit of a mess! Will TAN’s lawyers at time of the agreement have questions to answer?
semper vigilans
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."
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).
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." hTTp://
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)
Quite disgraceful what's happened here
Guess what!Walmart have just ordered 30 electric truck from Tesla.A very big shame about this company....
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.
Chat Pages: 803  802  801  800  799  798  797  796  795  794  793  792  Older
Your Recent History
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

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

P: V: D:20191122 00:36:42