- Status
Looks like it's all coming to a head on 17th.
High court application where purchaser (presumably Ashley), will apply for purchase of ACL without any security (i.e. bondholders mortgage on the lease) in place.
Trustee seemingly saying he won't intervene as insufficient time to obtain bondholders formal opinion on release of the security.
It seems that a number of bondholders aren't willing to surrender their security, and (unsurprisingly) aren't happy with the inaction of the trustee, so they're organising their own legal representation in the court.
Legal bunfight possibly awaits, which I guess might put the brakes on the pre-pack going through.
This is from that ADVFN bondholders' forum.
High court application where purchaser (presumably Ashley), will apply for purchase of ACL without any security (i.e. bondholders mortgage on the lease) in place.
Trustee seemingly saying he won't intervene as insufficient time to obtain bondholders formal opinion on release of the security.
It seems that a number of bondholders aren't willing to surrender their security, and (unsurprisingly) aren't happy with the inaction of the trustee, so they're organising their own legal representation in the court.
Legal bunfight possibly awaits, which I guess might put the brakes on the pre-pack going through.
This is from that ADVFN bondholders' forum.
ADVFN
uk.advfn.com
This has certainly been an eye opener into the murky world of finance and bonds. It seems Wasps were essentially loaned £35m with, in real terms, no security.
Even ignoring the slightly dubious, to say the least, valuations of the lease it seems near impossible to actually enforce the security.
For the trustee to say there's not time to contact bondholders is quite a bold claim when bondholders have for weeks, if not months, been requesting the trustee does something as they watched their investment disappear.
I’ve got reasonable knowledge of corporate law and finance. I’m no absolute expert (this is unprecedented stuff) and have never come across scenarios whereby Bondholders and Trustees have contentious security over a lease of a potential community asset with a group In administration.
To imply security and then have things unravel as they are is a bit of a soap opera to geeks like me who find these things fascinating.
The points of law will be argued (that’s why we have lawyers, to argue different points of law, and judges to decide which is most applicable)
The logical guess (and stop reading if this is boring to you) is that the MA bid exceeds £35m in which case the Bondholders won’t have an axe to grind against the Trustee.
Nothing is certain and this may run and run.
It looks a desperation move from the bondholders - more that they feel it is unfair rather than a genuine legal issue. Trustee obviously has experience and the legal advice to proceed as he is.Looks like it's all coming to a head on 17th.
High court application where purchaser (presumably Ashley), will apply for purchase of ACL without any security (i.e. bondholders mortgage on the lease) in place.
Trustee seemingly saying he won't intervene as insufficient time to obtain bondholders formal opinion on release of the security.
It seems that a number of bondholders aren't willing to surrender their security, and (unsurprisingly) aren't happy with the inaction of the trustee, so they're organising their own legal representation in the court.
Legal bunfight possibly awaits, which I guess might put the brakes on the pre-pack going through.
This is from that ADVFN bondholders' forum.
ADVFN
uk.advfn.com
jesus wept
I’m going to mute you.
You rarely have anything to contribute other than sarcasm and drivel.
Sad and boring.
Was he one of the investors?
I’ll be honest, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the bond holders. It’s like taking a bookies to court because your horse didn’t come in.
Brought us where ?
Stick to putting your savings in the post office and premium bonds mate, it's safer!
The administrators have made it clear that the offer is insufficient to pay them back in full. There are, of course, other sources of funds - the proceeds from sale of P shares back to PRL and the proceeds of sale of Wasps Holdings.
I’ve got zero knowledge of corporate law or business finance and I don’t know “big” Mike personally but I bet he and his team have been all over this for months with a fine tooth comb, you don’t go from a corner shop owner to a multi-billionaire without plenty of street cred, I know who my money is on.
Someone PM me when something actually happens. Cba for another Philosopher vs rest of SBT match
Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
However the Court Application is to remove all BH security so the P Share issue ends if they get approval
Bond holders unhappy that it's all been done in secret.
Welcome to our world.
Will be interesting to see if the courts remove all security so the bond holders are out of the equation.
Welcome to our world.
Will be interesting to see if the courts remove all security so the bond holders are out of the equation.
I don’t think that is correct, it is to remove the charges / security against the assets to be purchased by the preferred bidder. That doesn’t include the proceeds from P shares.
I am assuming it also includes any preferred bidders for WH Ltd - holding the shares or just the P Shares to (say ) WASPS Newco?
We wont know what they are really up to until the hearing
I have heard from a Bondholder that he thinks they are expecting to see all their security removed (but it is an ACL hearing so you might be right - others to follow? )
However, The Administrator has commented the P Shares are not in their gift to sell. So no idea who has the right or when they will have it
That does not mean when they are sold the funds should not follow the charge - if still there.
I do not know who holds the Shares - in which entity - so it may be they have to wait for PRL to force the sale
Either way the Bondholders dont look like they will get that sorted quickly
Last edited:
Wasps Holding were the rugby operation so they hold the P share. My understanding is that sales of P shares are “under the control” of the PRL. In this situation, PRL are expected to demand that the P shares ( and those of Worcester Warriors) are sold back to PRL - so you are right, PRL need to force the sale.
The terms of the bonds require the proceeds of sale of P shares be placed in a special bank account for the Trustees to be able to distribute those funds to bondholders in proportion to the value of their bond holdings. The hearing next week is about the purchase of ACL and IEC without the burden of the securities on them - not sure if Compass have security against IEC.
What I don’t get is if Mike Ashley’s bid isn’t paying the bond holders. How come the trustees are not trying to enforce an admin and a potential bidding war?
like - how can the administrators not go through Admin properly
like - how can the administrators not go through Admin properly
The trustees are making it as hard as possible for the bond holders to do anything.
Maybe because risk is everyone backs off, waits for liquidation and then the bidding war starts at a much lower rate? And bondholders would get nothing under a liquidation? HMRC not getting to wait around for their money
The bidding war by the sounds of it was the pre-pack admin, between MA and NEC. Any genuine bidders would have come forward then.
- Status