Page 6 of 6

Re: Interserve open offer

Posted: March 17th, 2019, 8:46 am
by Bouleversee
Am I right in thinking that the govt. awarded IRV more large contracts after the first big drop and the recycling debacle came to light, giving the impression that all would be well and that that was just a temporary blip?

I've just read that IRV will have spent £33m on advice since Dec. 31, 2018.

Re: Interserve open offer

Posted: March 18th, 2019, 11:06 am
by Bouleversee
An article in today's Times headed "Interserve was handed work despite crisis" says that "the govt. has been accused of "irresponsibility" as it emerged that Interserve won £660m. worth of public contracts as it slid into a financial crisis that led to its collapse into administration last week". £432m in 2017 and £233m last year; £6m since "it began lining up a rescue deal in December".

Re: Interserve open offer

Posted: March 18th, 2019, 1:07 pm
by Arborbridge
Bouleversee wrote:An article in today's Times headed "Interserve was handed work despite crisis" says that "the govt. has been accused of "irresponsibility" as it emerged that Interserve won £660m. worth of public contracts as it slid into a financial crisis that led to its collapse into administration last week". £432m in 2017 and £233m last year; £6m since "it began lining up a rescue deal in December".


Newspapers will spin things as they wish. Had the government not carried on with contracts it would be accused of pulling the rug from IRV and causing chaos. Whatever the event, whatever the facts, their will always be people saying someone else could have done it better. It happens on here too ;)

Those that can do: those that can't criticise.

Arb.

Re: Interserve open offer

Posted: March 18th, 2019, 2:12 pm
by Dod101
Bouleversee wrote:An article in today's Times headed "Interserve was handed work despite crisis" says that "the govt. has been accused of "irresponsibility" as it emerged that Interserve won £660m. worth of public contracts as it slid into a financial crisis that led to its collapse into administration last week". £432m in 2017 and £233m last year; £6m since "it began lining up a rescue deal in December".


I agree with Arb's comments. In addition, the fact is that Interserve is still operating and it seems that it would have whether or not the vote had gone the other way on Friday, so I am not sure of the point. It is 'just' the shareholders that were effectively being wiped out irrespective of how the vote had gone.

Dod

Re: Interserve open offer

Posted: March 18th, 2019, 2:43 pm
by Bouleversee
I wasn't making any point in particular, just reporting what was being said, and the same thought had occurred to me as it did to you two. I certainly thought at the time that it was good that the govt. was giving them a chance to recover, which encouraged me to hang on to my shares. Whether it was irresponsible for them to do so and whether they had done sufficient due diligence as it were is for others to judge. No doubt there will be some sort of enquiry. Perhaps the directors will be asked to attend the Parliamentary committee to explain themselves. I'm certainly not impressed with them and I am appalled by the amount of money that the advice from EY and other bloodsuckers is costing. Everyone makes huge amounts of money but the poor shareholders.

Re: Interserve open offer

Posted: April 14th, 2019, 8:30 am
by monabri
https://www.ft.com/content/d41872c6-5d2 ... 1f5ada9d40

"Two senior executives at Interserve earned a combined £1.99m in the year to March even though shareholders were wiped out after the government contractor collapsed into administration last month.

Debbie White, chief executive of Interserve, and Mark Whiteling, finance director, were both awarded bonuses that accounted for more than half their final salary, but short of the full 125 per cent figure agreed in their contracts, according to the annual report."

Salt & wound?