Tweedy Group - The Aftermath

BIG-SLICK-POKER

The Judge refused the examiners proposal today and Carlow option . Tweedy under court protection until tuesday so judgement made in his favour ... No Reciever till then and Invetment will be in by March 15th

Looks like the tweedy group is back in full swing

Ledger

Well i think i can take this opertunity to say on a lot of peoples behalf:

PHEW!!

:rolleyes:

Ledger

BIG-SLICK-POKER

Yeah as good as it could go opens the door for investors now with the group so it will prob be willie bolster , The examiners case was thrown out and the bid from carlow so thats all good for the group . The group will prob go into recievership tuesday but that will open teh door for the willie bolster bid who will work with the group if the banks accept that and im sure they will as it will be the best option for all concerned .. Still a little to go all the same before its sorted but well done all concerned so far its 1-0 to the group at halftime

Good news i Hope

blackstufflad

So you think it is all over !!!! On the business model the tweedy group have in place not all the venues can survive and people will have to be laid off unless the number of people going out to drink goes up. Plus dont forget that he only promised 10% to the suppliers he owes money to , so recievership might still be on the cards. Lets see if the money turns up . Is Mr T'S share dependant on the sale of his house.

deisedol

Thats great news about tweedy group survival. It will give hope to others who are experiencing difficult times with bankers who are trying to break them. remember the saying the banks will give you an umbrella when the sun is shining and take it away from you the minute it starts to rain!
This is great news for Waterford, i think it will give people a lift from all the doom and gloom and negativity around the place. We need to support our own in these times.

Ledger

Just a thought. . . . the name of the thread is now defunct :rolleyes:





Ledger

Musicman2000

blackstufflad wrote: »

So you think it is all over !!!! On the business model the tweedy group have in place not all the venues can survive and people will have to be laid off unless the number of people going out to drink goes up. Plus dont forget that he only promised 10% to the suppliers he owes money to , so recievership might still be on the cards. Lets see if the money turns up . Is Mr T'S share dependant on the sale of his house.

Have to agree with blackstufflad, they way some people are talking a magic wand is going to be waved over Rubys, Muldoons and Oxygen for these premises to be done up a lot of investemant will be needed, but its good to hear that jobs will be safe for a while longer:)

nkay1985

Musicman2000 wrote: »

Have to agree with blackstufflad, they way some people are talking a magic wand is going to be waved over Rubys, Muldoons and Oxygen for these premises to be done up a lot of investemant will be needed, but its good to hear that jobs will be safe for a while longer:)

Yeah it's a fair point. There's a reason the business went into examinership in the first place. It'll take more than a bit of investment to sort it out. But hopefully they'll get their act together and the majority of people who are employed by them will hold onto their jobs.

AdMMM

Surely the investment will go towards servicing the debt rather than transforming the places though?

dayshah

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Well it appears that The Tweedy Group have won the battle...

Judge refused proposal from Examiner and Carlow. The venues are now under court protection for the time being.

The best possible result for the TG.

Not really according to this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0305/breaking71.html

The judge does not think that the company has a reasonable chance of survival, even with investment from the Carlow crowd:

"Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan ruled today that survival schemes for the companies proposed by examiner Kevin Hughes did not meet the legal test of demonstrating they have a reasonable prospect of survival."

To me it looks like it could even be heading for liquidation. I think this could be ok for jobs and (future) suppliers if someone buys the individual pubs to run them as pubs. Bad for suppliers that are owed money though.

"In a winding up, unsecured trade creditors would probably receive no payment while the guarantors would be called upon to pay the full debt due to the creditors, she said."

Tweedy comes across very badly in the article.

Also the article states that Tweedy Group has lost court protection. I'm no legal expert, so perhaps they keep the protection until Tuesday, when there will be more decisions in court.

abouttobebanned

That article doesn't contradict anything that I said. The outcome on Friday was the best possible outcome from friday's ruling.

dayshah

abouttobebanned wrote: »

That article doesn't contradict anything that I said. The outcome on Friday was the best possible outcome from friday's ruling.

Hmm, well you said "The venues are now under court protection for the time being."

The title of the article was "Tweedy group loses court protection", so that is one contradiction.

I think the best outcome for the Tweedy Group would be that the judge accepts the proposal put forward by the Tweedy Group and Tramore crowd. However, given that the judge does not think the business is viable and:

"The Tweedys appeared to have “lost sight” of their responsibilities and obligations to creditors and employees in the course of their dispute with Mr Hughes whom they had sought to have removed as examiner, the judge said.

They also failed to appreciate the absolute time limit imposed on the examinership process especially concerning their own alternative investment proposal, she added."

As the Tweedys are guarantors it looks like they will be in a hugely difficult position.

abouttobebanned

Things change. If I say it's sunny now and tomorrow you come on and say actually it's raining...does that mean I was wrong?

The tweedys have lost rubys and Muldoons...we all know this...but on Friday the judge could have sided with the examiner and handed the keys over to Carlow. That didn't happen and the next step is presumably receivership which will give bob time to get his investor ready. Bob will presumably, if that bid is accepted by the banks, become a GM or something.

We're not talking about the future of bob tweedy here but the future of the venues.

dayshah

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Things change. If I say it's sunny now and tomorrow you come on and say actually it's raining...does that mean I was wrong?

The tweedys have lost rubys and Muldoons...we all know this...but on Friday the judge could have sided with the examiner and handed the keys over to Carlow. That didn't happen and the next step is presumably receivership which will give bob time to get his investor ready. Bob will presumably, if that bid is accepted by the banks, become a GM or something.

We're not talking about the future of bob tweedy here but the future of the venues.

Well you would be wrong if you say its sunny now and tomorrow I told you that it had actually been raining. But anyway, I'm not looking for an argument, just wanted to add reality to some of yesterdays positivity.


I'm not very confident of any other investors given that

"[Tweedy Group] also failed to appreciate the absolute time limit imposed on the examinership process especially concerning their own alternative investment proposal, she added."

The time for finding new investors has past. Receivership is not about helping the firm to survive, put repaying creditors. Tweedy had their chance, 100+ days to get their investor ready. They didn't succeed.

However the action refers to Tweedy Group, so I think that the best that could happen for the general public is if individual venues are sold to investors. Tweedy group as an entity would be gone, but the pubs wouldn't.

I'm no legal expert, but I found this interesting.
http://www.mlaw.ie/news/examinership-receivership-and-liquidation-what-s-the-difference

A receiver will probably sell off individual pubs. Given the huge liabilities of Tweedy Group, and fall in property values, this wont cover all the liabilities resulting in liquidation. Also potential investors would have no reason to invest in Tweedy Group itself, just buy up some of the individual assets. I can't see how Bob Tweedy would end up as a general manager.

Due to the guarantees given, the guarantors could lose everything, but I don't have information as to the extent of the guarantees.

abouttobebanned

There is a helluva lot of speculation in your post but that's forgivable because it's spread all over this thread, by everyone.

Rubys and Muldoons are under the
microscope at the moment. Masons, Oskars, ten electric avenue...not as yet...but don't rule them out going in the future.

If bob's investors come on board I don't know how you can rule out him being GM with share options.

When whites of wexford went into receivership a few directors were kicked to the kerb but very few other changes occured

Adyx

dayshah wrote: »

Hmm, well you said "The venues are now under court protection for the time being."

The title of the article was "Tweedy group loses court protection", so that is one contradiction.

I think the best outcome for the Tweedy Group would be that the judge accepts the proposal put forward by the Tweedy Group and Tramore crowd. However, given that the judge does not think the business is viable and:

"The Tweedys appeared to have “lost sight” of their responsibilities and obligations to creditors and employees in the course of their dispute with Mr Hughes whom they had sought to have removed as examiner, the judge said.

They also failed to appreciate the absolute time limit imposed on the examinership process especially concerning their own alternative investment proposal, she added."

As the Tweedys are guarantors it looks like they will be in a hugely difficult position.

From that article it says the judge said she did not believe the business was viable based on the examiners proposal not the Tweedy/Kinglet Ltd proposal.

dayshah

Adyx wrote: »

From that article it says the judge said she did not believe the business was viable based on the examiners proposal not the Tweedy/Kinglet Ltd proposal.

Yes, but it is during the examinership process that Tweedy would try get the new investor. That stage has passed. The Tweedy's should have tried to convince the examiner of their proposal, but instead refused to cooperate with him. Obviously the examiner did not think it was viable.

Regarding Whites in Wexford, I think a crucial difference is that, even if it was loss making, it was worth keeping it going for the owners due to reasons involving tax write-offs. The whole zombie hotel thing.

Adyx

dayshah wrote: »

Yes, but it is during the examinership process that Tweedy would try get the new investor. That stage has passed. The Tweedy's should have tried to convince the examiner of their proposal, but instead refused to cooperate with him. Obviously the examiner did not think it was viable.

Regarding Whites in Wexford, I think a crucial difference is that, even if it was loss making, it was worth keeping it going for the owners due to reasons involving tax write-offs. The whole zombie hotel thing.

The examiner was pushing for the Carlow crowd as soon as they showed any interest instead of actually doing any examining. The Tweedys did find an investor. The only issue was the timing of the money being available.

dayshah

Adyx wrote: »

The examiner was pushing for the Carlow crowd as soon as they showed any interest instead of actually doing any examining. The Tweedys did find an investor. The only issue was the timing of the money being available.

The cheque was in the post?

CantGetNoSleep

I really don't understand what the Tweedy group are trying to do here? How do they plan on saving the group without any investment? Do the people commenting on this thread have any idea what examinership and receivership is? And the idea of this being a good thing as regards jobs being saved is ludicrous

abouttobebanned

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

I really don't understand what the Tweedy group are trying to do here? How do they plan on saving the group without any investment? Do the people commenting on this thread have any idea what examinership and receivership is? And the idea of this being a good thing as regards jobs being saved is ludicrous

please enlighten us

dayshah

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

I really don't understand what the Tweedy group are trying to do here? How do they plan on saving the group without any investment? Do the people commenting on this thread have any idea what examinership and receivership is? And the idea of this being a good thing as regards jobs being saved is ludicrous

From the article

"The Tweedys were perfectly entitled, as prospective or “contingent” creditors, to object to the survival plan and were also entitled, “although misguided”, to seek to protect their interests as shareholders although the shares were of no monetary value, she said."

It seems that they want to keep control of the business, protecting their interests as shareholders. This is despite the shareholding being worthless, so they can't keep control anyway. Its very strange.

blackstufflad

Well we have all been reading the Times. The truth is the business is a cash cow when it is running in the good times , and it has been milked dry by the owners with disregard to any creditors. The examiner could see this and this is probably one of the reasons that he felt he could not do business with Mr T . Mr T was mis guided in his belief that any investors money would somehow go to the directors. First port of call would be the revenue, then the banks . As for backers and investors in the business , I think I would want to be in charge of the cash in the safe if I invested.

So if I was Mr Bolster I would wait until it went into recievership and pick up the pieces that dont go into NAMA. And as the house is for sale is that to raise capital ?????? or something else ???

Adyx

dayshah wrote: »

The cheque was in the post?

If that's what you want to think, sure. :rolleyes:

CantGetNoSleep

abouttobebanned wrote: »

please enlighten us

The court will enlighten us when we see the company wound up or going into liquidation, with the Tweedys not getting a penny.

I am sure some of the pubs will be bought by new investors, which could be good for the local scene by freshening things up a bit. But it is by no means a guarantee that all jobs will be saved, or original staff will be kept. Likewise ordinary trade creditors probably won't receive a penny. And there is no guarantee investors will be found to take over all venues in this climate

nkay1985

I have to say that from an objective perspective, dayshah's posts make more sense than most here. Their proposed business model was deemed to be not viable. Isn't the next step receivership? And the group being broken up and sold as individual venues, or whatever way the receiver can get the most money?

AdMMM

The only issue was the timing of the money being available.

Pretty big issue though, wouldn't you think?

Adyx

AdMMM wrote: »

Pretty big issue though, wouldn't you think?

Certainly, but that was nothing to do with the Tweedy Group.

To be honest no matter what happens or who takes over, we're not going to see any huge change in Waterford's night life. The last number of years have shown that there is no market for more than one club here any more.

CantGetNoSleep

If it was part of their proposal to show that the business can survive going forward it certainly is to do with them.

I think the people posting here may not be fully aware of what examinership entails. It is an alternative to liquidation or receivership, which involves the court protecting the company from creditors calling in debts for ~100 days. During this time the company puts forward a proposal of how the company will get itself out of the mess it finds itself in and how to ensure this won't happen again etc. This might involve new investment / selling off an asset to pay creditors etc. Can't see any of this happening with the Tweedy Group though

Then a creditors meeting is arranged, where the main creditors and the examiner try to form a scheme of arrangement, which sets out how much of the debts will be paid back and how they will be paid, normally only around 10c in the €.

The court is then free to accept or reject this scheme. While allowing a company to continue trading and letting it avoid pay debts may seem unfair to creditors, the aim of this is to prevent the company being wound up, where creditors will usually receive even less than in a liquidation, and jobs will be lost etc, leaving the community wound up.

With the Tweedy were they using examinership just to avoid paying their debts in full while not wanting to allow in new investors / sell assets / shares in the co? Confusing

Adyx

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

If it was part of their proposal to show that the business can survive going forward it certainly is to do with them.

I think the people posting here may not be fully aware of what examinership entails. It is an alternative to liquidation or receivership, which involves the court protecting the company from creditors calling in debts for ~100 days. During this time the company puts forward a proposal of how the company will get itself out of the mess it finds itself in and how to ensure this won't happen again etc. This might involve new investment / selling off an asset to pay creditors etc. Can't see any of this happening with the Tweedy Group though

Then a creditors meeting is arranged, where the main creditors and the examiner try to form a scheme of arrangement, which sets out how much of the debts will be paid back and how they will be paid, normally only around 10c in the €.

The court is then free to accept or reject this scheme. While allowing a company to continue trading and letting it avoid pay debts may seem unfair to creditors, the aim of this is to prevent the company being wound up, where creditors will usually receive even less than in a liquidation, and jobs will be lost etc, leaving the community wound up.

With the Tweedy were they using examinership just to avoid paying their debts in full while not wanting to allow in new investors / sell assets / shares in the co? Confusing

I think I wasn't very clear when I said there was an issue with the timing of the money. What I meant was that Kinglet Ltd would not be able to put up the money for investing until the end of March (That has since changed to the 15th).

I very much doubt Bob and Ann wanted to allow in outside investors but I don't think the examinership was just a cop out. As for selling assets, I'm sure Bob wishes he had never bought Preachers (again) but it would be next to impossible to sell it now.