B&Q Examiner Shock

nipper banks

The B&Q Examiner is proposing to burn unsecured Creditors. They will only receive 10% of what's owed to them. This is an outrage, as B&Q are a major multinational. They would not dare do this in the UK.
Irish creditors are seen as a soft touch.
The other huge implication is that if they get away with this others will follow.
B&Q creditors must band together to oppose this.

Lobby Con Shine

nipper banks wrote: »

The B&Q Examiner is proposing to burn unsecured Creditors. They will only receive 10% of what's owed to them. This is an outrage, as B&Q are a major multinational. They would not dare do this in the UK.
Irish creditors are seen as a soft touch.
The other huge implication is that if they get away with this others will follow.
B&Q creditors must band together to oppose this.

Oppose it how?

B&Q is just a trading name. I assume that they have a limited liability company established in every country where they trade which is a separate legal entity to head office in the UK. The debts die with the company so creditors will have to suck up the miserly offer from the Examiner or get nothing.

VECTRON

This is common practise when a company has unsecured creditors

Unless you can recover your goods that you supplied the business

The admin's will only pay out a minimum offer to all the unsecured creditors

I suppose its better to get something than to get nothing

But regardless of who your doing business with, you should always do your credit checks on the business or person to see what there actually worth and not get burnt

smcgiff

VECTRON wrote: »

Unless you can recover your goods that you supplied the business

This is key for non services provision. If you supply goods you need to have a retention of title clause.

Bigcheeze

Lobby Con Shine wrote: »

Oppose it how?

.

By voting to reject the offer. That's how examinership works. Its then up to the examiner to increase the offer or the examinership could fail and the company is liquidated.

10% is pretty low in an examinership situation. At that level it's potentially worth the creditors rejecting the offer.

Are the new investors the same people as existing owners ?

Op you need to contact the largest creditors in advsnce of the creditors meeting if you want to organise opposition. The company will be contacting creditors to pull together enough proxy votes. You can also speak at the court. The examiner will not want to go to in front of the high court without good creditor support.

Lobby Con Shine

Bigcheeze wrote: »

By voting to reject the offer. That's how examinership works. Its then up to the examiner to increase the offer or the examinership could fail and the company is liquidated.

10% is pretty low in an examinership situation. At that level it's potentially worth the creditors rejecting the offer.

Are the new investors the same people as existing owners ?

Op you need to contact the largest creditors in advsnce of the creditors meeting if you want to organise opposition. The company will be contacting creditors to pull together enough proxy votes. You can also speak at the court. The examiner will not want to go to in front of the high court without good creditor support.

It was a rhetorical question.

Reject the deal and the company goes into liquidation. Everyone then gets diddly squat.

smcgiff

Lobby Con Shine wrote: »

Everyone then gets diddly squat.

Why?

Bigcheeze

Lobby Con Shine wrote: »

It was a rhetorical question.

Reject the deal and the company goes into liquidation. Everyone then gets diddly squat.

Not necessarily. The offer can be improved. You seem to think that any offer better than liquidation should be accepted by the creditors.

Someone is investing money in b&q and is going to get the b&q business in return. The question is if they are prepared to put more money in to buy the business and achieve a better result for the creditors or are they prepared to lose the business. Creditors aren't the only ones with something to lose.

If this is an examinership of convenience by the UK parent to renegotiate the leases and restructure the business on the cheap, I don't think I'd accept 10% as an unsecured.

The creditors need to get organised.

I wonder if the debt to the parent is included in that.

smcgiff

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder if the debt to the parent is included in that.

It would. But I guess the parent was very insistent on their account being kept up to date. Just a guess, loike.

sandin

nipper banks wrote: »

The B&Q Examiner is proposing to burn unsecured Creditors. They will only receive 10% of what's owed to them. This is an outrage, as B&Q are a major multinational. They would not dare do this in the UK.
Irish creditors are seen as a soft touch.
The other huge implication is that if they get away with this others will follow.
B&Q creditors must band together to oppose this.

Why oh why do some people always put a "they wouldn't do this in the UK"

Firstly, we are not the UK. Our rules are different. Secondly the UK has these horrible pre-packed deals where the first you hear of it is afetr everything has been agreed and you get eff all as an unsecured creditor - so uterr BS that it would not happen in the UK - it does and its damn worse.

Secondly - who says unsecured creditors would get 10%. - i can't see it in any report. In fact, it seems suppliers are being paid in full by B&Q and that it is only the parent companyand landlords that looks to be taking a hit. I may be wrong, but it does seem to be amuch much fairer way that the UK version of pre-packed liquidations where a new company arises from the ashes before daybreak with identical directors and shareholders levaving unsecured creditors and landlords in the dark without a penny.


btw - this is from the examinship report

B&Q said it will continue to trade as normal during the examinership process. All staff and suppliers will continue to be paid and gift vouchers and credit notes will be honoured during the process.


Seeking the interim examiner, Rossa Fanning, for the company, said it was insolvent with liabilities of more than €17m to its parent company, Kingfisher plc, but has no bank or revenue debts. Its turnover had fallen 24.2 per cent from a peak €124m in 2009 to some €94.2m in the financial year to end January 2012. A loss of some €20.5m is forecast for the year ended January 2013, including restructuring and loss making provisions.

Kingfisher had written to the company earlier this week saying the business was not sustainable with its current cost base and that the levels of support required by the company were no longer feasible. Kingfisher had also indicated it would provide financial support to the company if it was under court protection so as to enable it meet the cash flow projections in an independent accountant's report. Kingfisher also indicated it would be interested in making new investment in a restructured business of the company.