Wasps 22 Discussion Threads

[jonnyhatesrap] 07/10/2022 15:42

The forfeiture of the headlease is a red herring, if attempted by the Council. Relief from forfeiture will be progressed by Wasps. The risk of a moratorium by Wasps Holdings is much more severe as it means bondholders/trustee can’t enforce on the security over the headlease and sell it to a third party.

[thincat1] 07/10/2022 12:51

I've just asked Laurence Griffiths how the Trustee assesses the risk of the lease being seized and how they had taken it into account in deciding what to do. He has replied, courteously but rigidly not answering my questions, saying he cannot advise.

I've replied: "Laurence, your reply suggests a less than candid attitude.

As you can see from what I wrote, I am not asking for advice about what I should do. I am asking what you, as Trustee, make of this risk. You will have assessed it, but seem terrified of giving bondholders any understanding of how you are reaching decisions, which is creating an unfavourable impression.

It's great to be professional, but if you don't answer reasonable questions and instead answer other questions that weren't asked, you appear evasive, which I'm sure is not your intention."

I'm not sure we will push the Trustee off the high-handed position they are occupying, but it's worth trying, if you have time.

[dandigirl] 07/10/2022 08:14

The Guardian : Wasps’ stadium could be seized by Coventry city council if they follow Worcester into administration. The council, which is the freeholder of the Coventry Building Society Arena, has the right to take control of the stadium “if the tenant enters into some kind of insolvency regime”.

[bondholder] 07/10/2022 04:40

I'm referring to the freeholder in relation to forfeiture

[fastcat99] 06/10/2022 22:52

hxxps://e.coventrytelegraph.net/interface/external_view_email.php?RK6378685651169114zzzzz64160284a255cb0fef87509b08f0a3f3a74ad2235b6ed8919ee12cc26e091e0b5e&varId=

This (though qualified) puts a further sensational angle (on what I was already calling multidimensional chess back in 2020)
- in brief, questions being raised by CCC as to whether “our” title to the Stadium lease is certain to remain in place if “Wasps” (which precise entity may be critical) enters into full receivership!

[pusb] 06/10/2022 22:34

To answer my own question, probably before the Trustee gets off his backside.

[pusb] 06/10/2022 22:28

I wonder when Wasps Finance will file a NOI?

[barondene] 06/10/2022 19:43

Thincat1

I think you lent it to WASPs Finance and they re-lent it

If so your claim is against WF which has no NOI

But that needs checking

If it is correct the lease forfeiture threat can be over come. Your risk is lessened

[thincat1] 06/10/2022 19:17

@barondene

I lent my money to Wasps and I am not happy that I haven't had it back on time. But I don't know much about insolvency and I am therefore not sure whether forcing the Issuer into administration helps us. I can see that this might mean the lease is sold at a lower price than it would achieve otherwise. Am I wrong in this concern?

I am also unclear whether the Trustee can force the Issuer into administration, now that a second notice of intention has been filed.

I'm hoping that accountants or investors with more experience can answer those questions here.

[barondene] 06/10/2022 18:34

@thincat1

Who did you lend your monies to and thus should be repaying?

[barondene] 06/10/2022 18:28

@Bondholder - were you repaid your capital in May?

[bigfish1] 06/10/2022 12:46

Simon Gilbert I have PMd you

[bondholder] 06/10/2022 12:41

There are no substantive breaches of covenants even alleged.

[thincat1] 06/10/2022 12:30

Two possible naive questions: Is it in bondholders' interests to appoint an administrator, if that triggers forfeiture of the lease and might therefore mean the lease became less valuable? Can the Trustee appoint an administrator now, given the second NoI is filed and in force?

[bondholder] 06/10/2022 12:28

The right to forfeit is merely a security for the performance of thecovenants and so, provided that the lessor and other personinterested can be put in the same position as before the breach andforfeiture occurred, relief should be granted.

[jonnyhatesrap] 06/10/2022 11:31

Termination of the headlease is a red herring. Whilst insolvency/administration may allow the lease to be terminated, relief from forfeiture is available - and freeholders can’t show loss/just cause for termination. Derek R isn’t stupid - why would be lose the stadium? Appointing an administrator causes a moratorium on bondholders/trustee enforcing security. So Trustee needs to appoint it’s own administrator.

[dehuminiser] 06/10/2022 11:12

There is an article on the bbc now which does say what I’ve always thought. Namely if ACL 2006 does go into administration then the freeholder can claim back the head lease which means the bond holders will get zero return. I think the bond holders lack of collective activity will cost them dearly in the end

[thesimongilbert] 06/10/2022 11:09

I'd be interested in hearing what you think the implications of this are for you as bondholders.
Coventry City Council 'may have right to force stadium ownership' forfeit.

[pusb] 06/10/2022 09:32

Are Wasps aiming to have their own administrator in place before the next interest payment is due?

[bigfish1] 06/10/2022 08:39

Every Bondholder has a direct line to the trustees, it's 020 7330 2113, his name's Laurence, he may be on holiday, if so speak to Chris. Or you can email [e-mail]
cc. [e-mail]
cc. [e-mail]

I suggest EVERYONE gets in contact.

[jonnyhatesrap] 05/10/2022 20:26

If the company holding the headlease enters into administration using a Derek R appointed administrator, this causes a moratorium on enforcement of the bondholders’ security without court consent. The Trustee now has to exercise its discretion otherwise bondholders are materially prejudiced (and Trustee is arguably grossly negligent). Can whoever has a direct line into US Bank please ask them to confirm their position? They will have a limited period of time to appoint their own administrator and avoid the moratorium.

[barondene] 04/10/2022 18:21

The bondholders should ask the Trustee if they have agreed to the Arena NOI or involved

[barondene] 04/10/2022 17:37

Trustee said anything?

[pusb] 04/10/2022 17:35

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 17:33

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