Wasps 22 Discussion Threads

[pusb] 04/10/2022 16:35

So, Wasps Holdings and ACL submitted an NOI on 21 September and have today asked for another 10 days. At the same time, ACL 2006, the company which holds the head lease, has submitted its first NOI. That is sufficient for Coventry Council to trigger the return of the lease to them ( subject to Barondene’s caveats) but also means, presumably, that in 10 working days time they can request a further 10 days extension if they argue that they are in an even more relatively advanced stage of discussions in relation to the arena. That would take us up to 1st November.

[barondene] 04/10/2022 16:33

So what happened to the interested parties from 10 days ago? Can HMRC block the "application "? Arena Coventry (2006) have now applied for NOI protection

[pusb] 04/10/2022 16:18

Discussions have been at an advanced stage since before the beginning of May and the financial outlook is significantly worse now than it was then.

[bigfish1] 04/10/2022 15:38

As expected, another 10 days. I wonder how long they'll keep doing this...

[pusb] 04/10/2022 13:50

It’s a salutary lesson for anyone considering investing in such bonds, especially if the USBank of Trustees are involved.

[a0002577] 04/10/2022 12:34

you ask "By doing nothing is that not a considered action? What else could it be?"

Could it be Head in the sand inaction ?

[barondene] 04/10/2022 11:10

By doing nothing is that not a considered action? What else could it be?

[bigfish1] 04/10/2022 10:07

Yes well unless we can get 25% of the bondholders together to ask him by 3.29 the trustee is not going to lift a finger. Wouldn't want to get themselves into trouble by taking something that might be considered 'action' now would they.

[barondene] 04/10/2022 09:59

I don't think automatic administration but they lose their creditor protection

Just my unqualified thinking

[ozzie_dog] 04/10/2022 09:41

So unless something happens in the 11th hour, does that mean that Wasps will be in administration today? If so, what will follow? What are the likely possible alternative events that will follow Wasps entering administration?

[barondene] 04/10/2022 09:12

They can only ask for an extension where they can show it is preparatory to an Administration or advanced stages of similar to a pre-pack in Administration

The 10 day period runs from (and includes ) the day of filing - which ends today

At a minimum the Trustee should be seeking the reasons for any request to extend

Possibly at 15.29hrs - time of filing

[bigfish1] 04/10/2022 07:03

They can ask for a 10 day extension to the NOI but I checked with the trustee and thus far, they haven't. I believe tomorrow is the last day.

[barondene] 03/10/2022 12:23

They cannot just ask for an extension

The NOI is what it says a Notice of Intension to enter Administration

They have show that is the route they are going

The Trustee should ensure that is where thery are heading

[...]

[bigfish1] 03/10/2022 09:00

I'm hearing rumours that Wasps may have asked for a 10 day extension to the NOI? Can anyone confirm this. The Trustee seems to me to have one goal only, and that is to protect their own interests. I have remonstrated with them at length about the fact that the offering circular clearly states that they can act at their own discretion, and that the time to do so has well and truly passed. They defaulted on the principle four months ago and have just abandoned the bondholders with no discussion or negotiation. The Trustee is choosing to ignore their ability to act at their own discretion and insists that they are not bound to act unless instructed to do so by the bondholders. I am frankly frustrated that the procedure to bring about a meeting is on hold as I suspect Wasps will find a way out of administration while continuing to ignore the bondholders. The trustees seem to be picking and choosing on their interpretation of the trust deed. Much of it makes no sense as it does not cover the actions to take in the event of a default on the return of the principal. The whole default section 9, page 111, leads only to an 'Acceleration Notice'. An Acceleration Notice is null and void in this situation as the loan is already 'due and payable' and has been for some time. There is nothing to accelerate. They owe us the money right now, today!

[barondene] 03/10/2022 08:30

Without the background information we do not know. At some point The Trustee mat have to justify his stance

See above However I do not know why he has not secured the Bondholders position by calling in debt and appointing a Receiver. I think he is protecting himself first

The key is the Bondholders themselves to use the rules they agreed to and enforce their wishes. I suspect many did not read the prospectus in depth and assumed they would not reach this stage

[pusb] 01/10/2022 13:20

Barondene. Have they? Are they? Will they?

[barondene] 30/9/2022 18:16

13579113

The Trustee acts in the best interest of the bondholders. That is not the same as the bondholders being in control.

[135791113] 30/9/2022 16:17

@Barondene - The trustees/bondholders are one and the same, essentially. The trustees represent and work on behalf of the bondholders.

[barondene] 30/9/2022 15:37

There seems to be some confusion about the NOI expiry date:

I think this gives the answer

hxxps://www.rollits.com/news/articles/the-10-day-notice-of-appointment-moratorium-when-does-the-bell-toll/

[barondene] 30/9/2022 15:25

@135791113

I am concerned about "stadium lease goes directly to the bondholders"

Have you checked this out? It seems clear that the Trustee acts for the Bondholders through whom actions flow. I am not sure how the "bondholders" would control his actions in an Administration. The mortgage charge is also in the Trustees name

To lever some form of control away from WASPS The Bondholder Trustee needs to appoint an Administrator to act for him and not FRP.

[addition] 29/9/2022 19:07

@135791113 ... Sort of, except that the trustee and other agents including the receiver will get paid first and then bondholders.

[cc2014] 29/9/2022 15:04

Agreed. You've described it very well I think.

[135791113] 29/9/2022 14:46

Yes, the process (as I understand it) would be that the bondholders would take the lease, liquidate it, and then be first in line for payments with any additional money over the £35m plus any outstanding interest returned to the company.

However, the important point is that the stadium lease goes directly to the bondholders who then have the opportunity to find the best buyer, and the sale of the lease is done at the agreement and under the direction of the bondholders. It is not done as a "fire sale" nor is there pressure to sell to the first buyer.

[cc2014] 29/9/2022 14:25

#1083

The receivers are entitled to any excess of the stadium value over £35m, if that exists so the Trustee can't just sit around and liquidate it at leisure.