JD Classics, what have they been up to?

[DonkeyApple]

The deal has happened quickly enough to slash the administrators drinks and dining bill at least.

[silentbrown]

Doofus said:

I'm not sure there are any grounds to assume that. The Administrator's job is to get the best value for creditors. That, invariably, ends up being less than they are owed.

Remember JD wasn't insolvent, as far as we know. It was put into administration primarily to avoid liability from lawsuits - which *could* have made it insolvent.
It was turning over £110+m in 2016 and even with Hood's legacy it should remain a significant and profitable player - otherwise HPS wouldn't be forking out for the business.

At a guess Charme took around a 50% stake? Which would leave the rest with Hood etc...

Here's the parent company details. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/1029944...

[classicaholic]

Yet another company voted up with ‘intanage assets’! 55 Million for their goodwill & mailing list!
Without that they are insolvent

[Doofus]

silentbrown said:

Remember JD wasn't insolvent, as far as we know. It was put into administration primarily to avoid liability from lawsuits - which *could* have made it insolvent.
It was turning over £110+m in 2016 and even with Hood's legacy it should remain a significant and profitable player - otherwise HPS wouldn't be forking out for the business.

At a guess Charme took around a 50% stake? Which would leave the rest with Hood etc...

Here's the parent company details. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/1029944...

Yes, but the point here was the amount for which it sold, and that we don't know.

[jaisharma]

DonkeyApple said:

Yup. It wouldn’t be likely that any of the liabilities had been purchased. You’d think that they would have just bought the assets and then the preferential lenders would take any cash and the company and its remaining liabilities wound up?

I guess those lenders would then seek to go after the assets of Hood for the shortfall?

On the surface it would seem that Tusk’s claim against the company has no value now as its hard to imagine any monies remaining that far down the queue and that he may find the same issue with regards to Hood as he is going to be towards the end of that queue?

I would agree with the first two paragraphs. As for the third, I imagine you are right about the Tuke Claim as one presumes there are insufficient assets to pay that. One more thought is that if the Tuke Claim was not the only one out there then the exposure couldn’t easily be quantified which is anothrer reason for the slate to be wiped by administration.
The personal claim is quite complex but unless Charme have got some kind of security, which I doubt would be sought in a sale and purchase agreement for the company, I imagine they and other claimants against Hood would rank equally.

Another thought, is that on paper the company looked very profitable. But if this type of “Tuke dealing” was prevalent (and I don’t have any knowledge) then that would boost the figures and the value of the company. I wonder what it would really be worth if those were stripped out. Perhaps considerably less.

[Burwood]

Charme acquired a significant majority. Hood didn’t own anything like 50%, maybe 20 max and his shares are now worth zero so the issue is moot . He gets no payout on this deal. No one but the banks get paid for now.

The only interesting part is now how the court action pans out.

[Willhire89]

Burwood said:

Hood didn’t own anything like 50%, maybe 20 max and his shares are now worth zero so the issue is moot . He gets no payout on this deal. No one but the banks get paid for now.

I thought that Hood still owned the building? If he did unless they relo he is in for a big payout in the deal

...or his wife's friends cousin

[Burwood]

Willhire89 said:

Burwood said:

Hood didn’t own anything like 50%, maybe 20 max and his shares are now worth zero so the issue is moot . He gets no payout on this deal. No one but the banks get paid for now.

I thought that Hood still owned the building? If he did unless they relo he is in for a big payout in the deal

...or his wife's friends cousin

It’s a building. It has nothing to do with the restructuring. Whoever owns it, it’s a very simple decision. Lease it or have it sat empty. Roll on court

[northo]

Well, this has all gone very well - nicely executed by Mr Gales and team.

IMHO I thought JD was dead in the water, but would I deal with Woodham Mortimer, a company that has all the skills and experience of JD but with none of the baggage, freshly scrubbed with antiseptic and ready to trade. Why not?

Will the new investors get the return they are hoping for? I'm saying no - give them a couple of years to figure it out.

Any thoughts?

[Burwood]

northo said:

Well, this has all gone very well - nicely executed by Mr Gales and team.

IMHO I thought JD was dead in the water, but would I deal with Woodham Mortimer, a company that has all the skills and experience of JD but with none of the baggage, freshly scrubbed with antiseptic and ready to trade. Why not?

Will the new investors get the return they are hoping for? I'm saying no - give them a couple of years to figure it out.

Any thoughts?

To be fair the back story was JD was being sold off as JD and most thought it dead and buried. It is. Wood ham have taken the assets they want, stripped out the liabilities and staff they don’t require. It’s not JD

I wish them all the best.

Edited by Burwood on Friday 21st September 09:21

[northo]

It's not JD without Derek Hood.....

[silentbrown]

Burwood said:

Charme acquired a significant majority. Hood didn’t own anything like 50%, maybe 20 max and his shares are now worth zero so the issue is moot . He gets no payout on this deal. No one but the banks get paid for now.

It's a tangled web, but Hood is *still* listed as a "Person with significant control" of Daytona Midco 1, which normally means >25% of shares. Charme are listed as having "Ownership of shares – More than 25% but not more than 50%" - which is odd as I've also seen references to them having a majority shareholding.

As for "shares are now worth zero". That assumes that the price paid by WM is no more than the amount the creditors are
owed. We're all guessing on both those figures but I'd be surprised if Charme lose 100% of their investment.

[DonkeyApple]

northo said:

It's not JD without Derek Hood.....

You certainly wouldn’t want to base your revenue projections around those of JD’s without Hood involved, who despite the obvious misdemeanours was the central character and Bon viveur who brought huge levels of business in.

[Burwood]

silentbrown said:

Burwood said:

Charme acquired a significant majority. Hood didn’t own anything like 50%, maybe 20 max and his shares are now worth zero so the issue is moot . He gets no payout on this deal. No one but the banks get paid for now.

It's a tangled web, but Hood is *still* listed as a "Person with significant control" of Daytona Midco 1, which normally means >25% of shares. Charme are listed as having "Ownership of shares – More than 25% but not more than 50%" - which is odd as I've also seen references to them having a majority shareholding.

As for "shares are now worth zero". That assumes that the price paid by WM is no more than the amount the creditors are
owed. We're all guessing on both those figures but I'd be surprised if Charme lose 100% of their investment.

We don’t know the terms, no. But the banks were owed 75m. The JD business has 60m net assets, book value. I’d wager the banks are left out of pocket. They already estimated a 25m hit.

And even if there is a surplus and there won’t, there are several legal actions ongoing involving big money. Those funds must be held. They don’t belong to the shareholders. It’s company money, to pay creditors.

[ettore]

Burwood said:

silentbrown said:

Burwood said:

Charme acquired a significant majority. Hood didn’t own anything like 50%, maybe 20 max and his shares are now worth zero so the issue is moot . He gets no payout on this deal. No one but the banks get paid for now.

It's a tangled web, but Hood is *still* listed as a "Person with significant control" of Daytona Midco 1, which normally means >25% of shares. Charme are listed as having "Ownership of shares – More than 25% but not more than 50%" - which is odd as I've also seen references to them having a majority shareholding.

As for "shares are now worth zero". That assumes that the price paid by WM is no more than the amount the creditors are
owed. We're all guessing on both those figures but I'd be surprised if Charme lose 100% of their investment.

We don’t know the terms, no. But the banks were owed 75m. The JD business has 60m net assets, book value. I’d wager the banks are left out of pocket. They already estimated a 25m hit.

And even if there is a surplus and there won’t, there are several legal actions ongoing involving big money. Those funds must be held. They don’t belong to the shareholders. It’s company money, to pay creditors.

Agree, shareholders of JD have lost their money subject to whatever may be left post the banks. Their recompense is presumably against Hood and whatever known assets he has (including the premises..) The real story is clearly not out and, once the army of lawyers have chewed their way through, may never be...

[northo]

DonkeyApple said:

northo said:

It's not JD without Derek Hood.....

You certainly wouldn’t want to base your revenue projections around those of JD’s without Hood involved, who despite the obvious misdemeanours was the central character and Bon viveur who brought huge levels of business in.

Glad you agree!

[Burwood]

ettore said:

Burwood said:

silentbrown said:

Burwood said:

Charme acquired a significant majority. Hood didn’t own anything like 50%, maybe 20 max and his shares are now worth zero so the issue is moot . He gets no payout on this deal. No one but the banks get paid for now.

It's a tangled web, but Hood is *still* listed as a "Person with significant control" of Daytona Midco 1, which normally means >25% of shares. Charme are listed as having "Ownership of shares – More than 25% but not more than 50%" - which is odd as I've also seen references to them having a majority shareholding.

As for "shares are now worth zero". That assumes that the price paid by WM is no more than the amount the creditors are
owed. We're all guessing on both those figures but I'd be surprised if Charme lose 100% of their investment.

We don’t know the terms, no. But the banks were owed 75m. The JD business has 60m net assets, book value. I’d wager the banks are left out of pocket. They already estimated a 25m hit.

And even if there is a surplus and there won’t, there are several legal actions ongoing involving big money. Those funds must be held. They don’t belong to the shareholders. It’s company money, to pay creditors.

Agree, shareholders of JD have lost their money subject to whatever may be left post the banks. Their recompense is presumably against Hood and whatever known assets he has (including the premises..) The real story is clearly not out and, once the army of lawyers have chewed their way through, may never be...

There appears to be a lot of confusion (not you). Charme have nothing to do with any of the restructuring. Lloyds appointed the Business consultants who appointed Administrators. Their job is realise as much money as possible for the Bank. They don't work for Charme. JD the entity/group owed up to 100M to Lloyds and other banks so the assets are sold off to pay that back. I'm sure there were some tasty cars, tools, inventory. 100m? Not a chance but that's not important.

If there was a surplus, the administrators leave, hand the operations back to the JD Directors and bid them farewell. It would then be up to a creditor(s) to collect what they are owed, if anything. Once all claims are settled, the shareholders make a decision, carry on or fold. We know they won't carry on. Hence, JD is dead and the shareholders have just lost their investment.

[northo]

Burwood said:

Hence, JD is dead and the shareholders have just lost their investment.

One way or another, they weren't going to get it back - even without this mess.

Edited by northo on Friday 21st September 11:36

[f1ten]

wonder if anyone will take over the mayfair showroom which is all closed up.

[No ideas for a name]

f1ten said:

wonder if anyone will take over the mayfair showroom which is all closed up.

I hope so...
according to companies House officers data for WM...

GALES, Jean-Marc Pierre

Correspondence address
Jd Classics Mayfair, 26-28 Mount Row, Mayfair, London, W1K 3SQ

He won't be getting his post.