REWS (Renewable Energy Waste Solutions plc) files 2018 accounts

In July REWS (Renewable Energy Waste Solutions) plc filed its accounts for the period ending December 2018.

Back in August 2018 REWS were anticipating bringing their waste recycling facility online by the end of 2018, allowing it to start generating the revenue it needed to repay the £2.8 million it had borrowed from investors.

Bad news is that hasn’t happened (or not as at June 2019 when the accounts were published).

Good news is that REWS has borrowed another £10 million. Well, good assuming it eventually gets its facility online, naturally. Otherwise good news becomes much worse news.

The directors describe 2018 as “exciting but challenging”. Due to “delays in the delivery of some key electrical components” the date for bringing its facility for turning waste into renewable energy was pushed back from the end of 2018 to “the latter part of quarter 2 in 2019”. This is also the month before the company’s first 2 year bonds became repayable.

As with the last fundraise, about a quarter of the money REWS raised via its bonds was paid out in issue costs, which would include the commission it paid to its introducers. The accounts show unamourtised issue costs grew to about £3.4 million against a total of £13.2 million outstanding to creditors.

REWS raised funds via 2 year bonds paying 8-12% per year and 4 year bonds paying 10-12% per year. A relatively small amount in bonds paying 20% per year (£159k) will mature in 2019.

Its published net assets now stand at minus £3.6 million and its auditors have noted the material uncertainty over whether the company will continue as a going concern, which will depend on whether it can belatedly get its rubbish power plant up and running, and generating returns of up to 12% per year after costs. (Including the cost of paying a quarter of funds raised out in issue costs.)

Its next accounts are due in June 2020.

Posted in Uncategorized

14 thoughts on “REWS (Renewable Energy Waste Solutions plc) files 2018 accounts

  1. Are there courses in how to be an Introducer?? They seem to have ‘introduced’ many normally same people into crazy schemes where the victims hand over wads of never to be seen again hard earned money.

    I too am one of these many victims and I always regarded myself as a cynical non-believer ;in anything!)

    I would love to attend a course in which a presumably normal person is changed into a creature that can persuade and lead the victim towards severe financial loss and then ‘disappear’ when the true madness of that scheme is revealed and the money gone.

  2. Then you will need to join all the government bodies supposedly there to help us – and do not do a thing even when given months of notice – smell the coffee – they just wait and watch – then deny – you are too good for that – so going forward like me – cos now I have very little choice – look after what you have left and number one – YOU! – I will not believe a thing I am told from now on.

  3. “…whether it can belatedly get its rubbish power plant up and running …”

    that was funny! You have a sharp wit.

  4. They didn’t get the correct planning for the facility they have built, so there is a problem.

  5. “They didn’t get the correct planning for the facility they have built, so there is a problem” Is that correct? I’ve received their sorry we are deferring your interest payment email a week ago but it was right at the last minute of the payment day with assurances of further contact in 4 working days. Which hasn’t happened so far. I note the “introducers” mention as above and i have spoken to my introducer and they seemed assured that REWS have a plan to sort their issues out. Whats ineteresting to me, is that having been a project manager you can only question their risk analysis and contingency planning to mitigate the risks as mentioned in the article above. In particular they don’t have Goverment backing financially but are relying on the EA to agree to allow their project to continue. Ouch! Like you guys, I await the breathtaking news on their deferment plans and a bondholders meeting!

  6. JA – See the Dudley Council Planning Portal. The ref is P19/0720
    The have retrospective approval just in, but with a whole lot of conditions attaching. They had to go through this in March because they built something the previous planning applicants 2/3 years ago didn’t ask for.

    You’ve got William McClintock on the board, so you’d have thought they would get the property angle right first time. Unfortunately Mr McClintock is tied up in other problems:
    And a number of the roads that this leads to, look dangerously unpromising I am afraid. I do hope you get paid OK.

  7. I would like to know if the Bondholder is entitled to cash in the bond if the company wishes to change the conditions of investing, such as making the holder hang on for four years instead of two and having to wait at least an extra six months before the first interest is paid. REWS make no such offer but could a bondholder enforce it.

  8. You might try googling ‘it was unlawful for the majority bondholders to aid the coercion of the minority by voting for a resolution which would destroy the minority’s economic rights under their bonds.’
    This judgement in 2012 seems to suggest that the proposed REWS vote is unlawful, but not sure where you would go from there.

  9. I am a small bond holder of REWS. Could anyone help with the following questions:

    1. is the proposed REWS vote lawful?
    2. Does REWS look a real business run into difficulties or simply a finance scam?
    3. Does introducer have any responsibility if REWS wind-up?
    4. Do we have to contact FCA?
    5. is there a dedicated discussion board like this for bond holders?

  10. 1. is the proposed REWS vote lawful? Answer – Yes. I have put this REWS and they have taken advice that the ruling I mentioned above does not apply. I imagine they wouldn’t stick their neck out if this wasn’t true. Therefore the proposed vote is lawful.

  11. I very much fear it’s very bad news for investors. Public information today confirms what I have laready known.
    Engen Group ( which has some really peculiar accounts showing teh acquisition fo a power plant for £450K and immediately revaluing it to £4.4m in 2017 just as teh bonds were starting to be issued. Engen claims to own 23.5% of REWS (although that is yet to be recorded at Companis House)
    Engen is a private vehicle used by Graeme Boiardini. GB has links with Jeremy Leach (google him an Offshorealert for all of his problems and also mentioned in one of my posts above), and they both have links to REWS directors WIlliam McClintock and Dennis Ng.
    Indeed, you woudl say they are thick as thieves. If what happened to investors in Leach’s traded policies funds is anything to go by, and the legal; claim by Richard Ambery and Deloittes is anything to go by, I’d think seriously about calling the police in. There was a lot of extending and never paying going on with the demise of TPL.
    What is curious if they are doing a forced bond swap or extension, is whether this breaches the FCA retail bond issuance ban. I think that it does and may explain why they may be desperate to get it over teh line before that ban comes into force ion 1 January.2020.
    I’d say that anyone with bonds that are not yet in breach cannot be forced to accept new terms including a longer maturity date until they are actually in default AND, as the vast majority are, that means anything issued in 2018 or after. They, then, will not be able to offer replacements as that will constitute a new offering and will breach the FCA rules and I think that ought to then trigger bringing the FCA in. That will be good as they can crawl all over what has been going on. Moreover, the threat of FCA intervention may protect the assets which may otherwise be extracted for zero value (as they have done before) – since selling minibonds illegally might just be a fining offence whereas unlawful asset extraction is imprisonable. Even dicey Jerry wouldn’t want that and Chicken McClintock will be squawking around the coop in blind panic.

  12. I am a new investor can anyone give me advice on what I should do or can do.

  13. Accounts now 5 months late. An aborted debt issuance to a financier with a tough reputation for playing hardball and now a share issuance and possible modified Mem and Arts. The new shares are inferior B shares and only a small amount have been issued – roughly 1.2% of the new enlarged capital. They must have been issued at a significant premium or otherwise why would the company require £632? This beggars the question as to who is subscribing for shares with reduced rights at a highly inflated price?

    Could it be that shares are being issued to new bondholders in lieu but on very unfavourable terms? Could it be that funds have been injected into the company from a third party investor on very unfavourable terms (ie to maintain almost all control and profit entitlement to the “founders” by only diluting the share capital by just over 1% whilst charging such a premium that they will have refinanced several million pounds of the current debt for just 632 shares? .

    Good news if existing REWs bondholders are to be redeemed. Very bad news for the investors behind the equity refinancing entity. However, If I am right in working out which entity has provided the finance, a lot of other retail investors are going to get burned. Indeed I might say they would be a bit MFIFed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.