SIAC in financial trouble

Gryire · 13-02-2014 11:11pm

scwazrh wrote: »

Its better than 0cent in the euro

If you were owed €50k and you got €5k and the company that owed you the money goes about its business as normal! You think this is ok!

Graham · 14-02-2014 8:45am

Unfortunately examinership rarely ends with happy creditors, it's usually a case of finding the least bad option from a list of bad alternatives.

In a related subject, Lech Witecki, was dismissed yesterday as the head of the Polish National Roads authority GDDKiA. Mr Witecki has been blamed by several major construction groups for showing a lack of flexibility which has lead to a number of lawsuits for part EU funded motorway projects. Siac, Sisk, Roadbridge, Strabag, Alpine Bau, Bilfinger, and Spain’s Ferrovial are all pursuing legal action.

Gryire · 14-02-2014 9:57am

Graham wrote: »

Unfortunately examinership rarely ends with happy creditors, it's usually a case of finding the least bad option from a list of bad alternatives.

I suppose it is a reflection of the society we live in. A company can write off 90% of it debt and continue on paying themselves big salaries etc. If it was a private mortgage the person who owed the money would get screed until they are bankrupt.

Graham · 14-02-2014 10:12am

Gryire wrote: »

I suppose it is a reflection of the society we live in. A company can write off 90% of it debt and continue on paying themselves big salaries etc. If it was a private mortgage the person who owed the money would get screed until they are bankrupt.

What's your source for the big salaries, I don't see that mentioned anywhere.

Gryire · 14-02-2014 1:36pm

Graham wrote: »

What's your source for the big salaries, I don't see that mentioned anywhere.

They always were very good payers. No pay cuts announced so far.

Gryire · 14-02-2014 1:42pm

Graham wrote: »

What's your source for the big salaries, I don't see that mentioned anywhere.

They always were very good payers. No pay cuts announced so far.

Graham · 14-02-2014 1:44pm

Gryire wrote: »

They always were very good payers. No pay cuts announced so far.

So no facts then?

Gryire · 14-02-2014 3:35pm

No pay cuts announced - fact

Graham · 14-02-2014 3:39pm

No salaries announced either, that must mean they're not getting paid at all by your logic.

Peterdalkey · 14-02-2014 3:45pm

This would never happen in North Korea... !

Gryire · 14-02-2014 3:49pm

Graham wrote: »

No salaries announced either, that must mean they're not getting paid at all by your logic.

Not exactly. No pay cuts announced means that the pay rates that were in place prior to examinership will still be inexistance today.

Peterdalkey · 14-02-2014 3:52pm

Gryire wrote: »

Not exactly. No pay cuts announced means that the pay rates that were in place prior to examinership will still be inexistance today.

Has this been announced?

Gryire · 14-02-2014 4:04pm

Peterdalkey wrote: »

Has this been announced?

You don't normally announce 'no pay cuts'. You do normally announce if there are going to be pay cuts.

To date there has been no pay cuts.

Peterdalkey · 14-02-2014 4:13pm

It is normal practice for exit from such arrangements that terms and conditions of many of the companiy's contractual arrangements are modified ( including employemt isssue in many cases).

Employemnt issues appear far from resolved as of today http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2014/0214/504374-siac-examinership/

Gryire · 14-02-2014 4:25pm

Peterdalkey wrote: »

It is normal practice for exit from such arrangements that terms and conditions of many of the companiy's contractual arrangements are modified ( including employemt isssue in many cases).

Employemnt issues appear far from resolved as of today http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2014/0214/504374-siac-examinership/

Unfortunately, there are likely to be job losses which is a shame when it should be over the worst of th recession and there is a bit of a pick-up.

According to yesterday's examiner;

"The judge noted the companies’ examiner, Michael McAteer, was satisfied the scheme would place the companies on “a sound commercial footing”. The companies had an “impressive” list of contracts into the future, he said."

Based on this, you would think that a short term lay-off might be enough to get these 'impressive" contracts kicked off.

Graham · 14-02-2014 5:10pm

Gryire wrote: »

Based on this, you would think that a short term lay-off might be enough to get these 'impressive" contracts kicked off.

No, I wouldn't automatically think that.

I would want someone to explain how a short-term yet non-specific layoff rather than statutory redundancy would effect these people?

Gryire · 14-02-2014 5:16pm

Graham wrote: »

No, I wouldn't automatically think that.

I would want someone to explain how a short-term yet non-specific layoff rather than statutory redundancy would effect these people?

It may not have to be non specific if contracts are looming. Statutory redundancy would not last long!

Graham · 14-02-2014 5:23pm

Gryire wrote: »

It may not have to be non specific if contracts are looming.

Maybe but it would be prudent to keep costs to a minimum until the looming contracts are signed, I'm assuming the examiner was privy to this information when he made his recommendations.

What if the alternative were to reduce creditor payouts by the cost of keeping the additional staff employed?

scwazrh · 14-02-2014 11:23pm

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

Not if you spent 70c to hopefully earn €1. In that case, 10c is as much use as 0.

I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who does not get paid but I learnt a long time ago that main contractor companies are parasites who live off subbies and will take any chance they can to not pay a sub-contractor.If you sub-contract to a main contractor you have to build into your rates enough to cover the eventual non payment of a contract.

Gryire wrote: »

If you were owed €50k and you got €5k and the company that owed you the money goes about its business as normal! You think this is ok!

I don't think its ok but I accept that it is the normal in our wonderful unregulated construction industry.Its very simple; if you sub-contract you will get burned .There is currently a shortage of good sub-contractors who will work for main contractors and the main reason is that main contractors are not making money and will at every chance reduce / withhold /erase payments due to subbies.

tipptom · 15-02-2014 5:36pm

Graham wrote: »

Unfortunately examinership rarely ends with happy creditors, it's usually a case of finding the least bad option from a list of bad alternatives.

In a related subject, Lech Witecki, was dismissed yesterday as the head of the Polish National Roads authority GDDKiA. Mr Witecki has been blamed by several major construction groups for showing a lack of flexibility which has lead to a number of lawsuits for part EU funded motorway projects. Siac, Sisk, Roadbridge, Strabag, Alpine Bau, Bilfinger, and Spain’s Ferrovial are all pursuing legal action.

Any news in what the EU is doing about this and are there any sanctions being bought to bear on the Polish authorities to sort this out and make them pay back monies and compensation to these company's?

Gryire · 15-02-2014 6:12pm

tipptom wrote: »

[/B] Any news in what the EU is doing about this and are there any sanctions being bought to bear on the Polish authorities to sort this out and make them pay back monies and compensation to these company's?

These cases can usually take a long time to resolve and will involve a lot of technical documentation.

Graham · 15-02-2014 7:44pm

tipptom wrote: »

[/B] Any news in what the EU is doing about this and are there any sanctions being bought to bear on the Polish authorities to sort this out and make them pay back monies and compensation to these company's?

I think most of these cases that have been raised are going through the Courts at the moment.

Gryire · 23-02-2014 8:50pm

Looks like the survival is touch and go again with new case.

Naux · 28-02-2014 1:09pm

Gryire wrote: »

According to yesterday's examiner;

"The judge noted the companies’ examiner, Michael McAteer, was satisfied the scheme would place the companies on “a sound commercial footing”. The companies had an “impressive” list of contracts into the future, he said."
.

I hope the judge got someone independent to look over the pricing of said impressive list of projects. There was major below cost tendering in the market on major projects in recent years.

It would be interesting to know the timing of when SIAC won the jobs that are on the list of future projects.

draiochtanois · 28-02-2014 1:12pm

This post has been deleted.

Graham · 28-02-2014 1:18pm

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thanks for that, so the line in the accounts would read:

accrual: €unknown

Good to know.

Gryire · 28-02-2014 2:45pm

Naux wrote: »

I hope the judge got someone independent to look over the pricing of said impressive list of projects. There was major below cost tendering in the market on major projects in recent years.

It would be interesting to know the timing of when SIAC won the jobs that are on the list of future projects.

They don't have the contracts yet. They have prequalified for them. As Bertie used to say, a lot of smoke and daggers!

Gryire · 28-02-2014 2:49pm

Graham wrote: »

Thanks for that, so the line in the accounts would read:

accrual: €unknown

Good to know.

An accrual should be made for any known or potential losses. The amount is based on estimates and agreed at board and mentioned in accounts.

Naux · 28-02-2014 3:25pm

Gryire wrote: »

They don't have the contracts yet. They have prequalified for them. As Bertie used to say, a lot of smoke and daggers!

Does that mean that they lost all the projects that they had won but not started before going into examinership? I would doubt it.

How else could examinership be viable? No work that they could immediately start on after "agreeing" reductions/write offs with unsecured creditors and exiting examinership? Viable on the basis that they may/may not win future projects??

Gryire · 28-02-2014 3:34pm

Naux wrote: »

Does that mean that they lost all the projects that they had won but not started before going into examinership? I would doubt it.

How else could examinership be viable? No work that they could immediately start on exiting examinership? Viable on the basis that they may/may not win future projects??

As far as I know. They also announced in court that there would be about 40 redundancies. That would take the payroll to about 90!

SIAC in financial trouble

Comments