Ripple energy "strike off"

[Joeboy]

Hitchhikers? Excellent!

I hope it all plays out well and expect it to.

[cojmh]

Hey Nowty,

I have read it .... and unfortunately I still have loads of questions - I have broken it down below:

You have all read the email form the KH Coop board haven't you ?

Message from the Kirk Hill Coop Board from yesterday,

Dear Nowty,

Further to the email from Sarah Merrick, CEO of Ripple, I wanted to issue a short statement to reassure you that the Kirk Hill Coop Board is fully aware of the current situation.

Who is I - the email is written as the board but clearly drafted by a single person. who is this (and the why is to do with my point below)

As your Board, our first priority is you, the members, and we are working hard with the investment partner,

The evidence here is a bit murky .... yes we are supposed to be the first priority - but only two of the board have been voted on by us .. who is everyone else and is it true that some have been put in by Ripple? If that is the case is it not a conflict of interest.

Bruntwood, to ensure that Kirk Hill Wind Farm Ltd (the company known as a special purpose vehicle or SPV which owns the wind farm assets and in which both the Coop and Bruntwood are shareholders) to resolve the situation as quickly as possible. We will give careful consideration to any findings and recommend changes as necessary to secure the long-term health of the Coop.

As you may be aware, the issue with both Companies House (for the SPV) and the FCA (for the Coop) relate to the accounts and both parties have now instructed independent accounting advisors and auditors to investigate and resolve the situation.

So have Bruntwood and Ripple jointly advised independent accounting advisors and auditors to look into this or has Ripple engaged one set of advisors and auditors and Bruntswood engaged their own (which is what I would be doing if I was Bruntwood!)

Also it says both parties .... but there are three parties ..... Ripple, The Coop board and Bruntswood .... so which two is it?

Companies House has already agreed to defer action for approximately 8 weeks to enable the SPV to bring the filing requirements up to date.

This might be true, but it might also not be. It is also true that after the first filing (which is now available on companies house) for strike off all companies are given 8 weeks to sort themselves out. So has this been negotiated or are we being told what the standard is? At this point we want cold hard facts not spin.

I know that this must feel like a very unsatisfactory position to many of you and I have received a small number of representations calling for an EGM. Rather than a formal general meeting with a long notice period the board proposes instead a members meeting that can be called more quickly once the situation is clearer. Members would then be entitled to call an EGM afterwards if unsatisfied.

We will look to find a date when we can, and in the meantime, we will send a weekly update with whatever we can tell you until this situation is resolved. Please bear with us as we deal with this significant commitment in addition to our day jobs.

Kirk Hill Coop Board

Nothing here states that they have accepted the small number of representations as valid, it also says long notice period ... which does not appear to hold true to the rules of the coop which apparently say the EGM has to happen within 6 weeks of the EGM threshold being reached.




Basically, I really really want to be wrong .... but I cannot be sure we are not being taken for idiots and this is what worries me.

I am posting this as a worried party and not as someone wanting to troll ..... so please accept the above is based on my own reading around of things I can find (and sometimes miss) ..... I am also the person who got 3 family members to invest in Ripple too ... so I am feeling pretty crappy about that too at the moment.

[NoraBatty]

That reminds me of my old firms HR rep telling me they were there for me, and working in my interests to get me the best possible outcome when they made me redundant years ago.

Tell me who pays your wages, now tell me again whos interests you are representing.

Joeboy, wow.

[NoraBatty]

Hey Nowty,

I have read it .... and unfortunately I still have loads of questions - I have broken it down below:

You have all read the email form the KH Coop board haven't you ?

Message from the Kirk Hill Coop Board from yesterday,

Dear Nowty,

Further to the email from Sarah Merrick, CEO of Ripple, I wanted to issue a short statement to reassure you that the Kirk Hill Coop Board is fully aware of the current situation.

Who is I - the email is written as the board but clearly drafted by a single person. who is this (and the why is to do with my point below)

As your Board, our first priority is you, the members, and we are working hard with the investment partner,

The evidence here is a bit murky .... yes we are supposed to be the first priority - but only two of the board have been voted on by us .. who is everyone else and is it true that some have been put in by Ripple? If that is the case is it not a conflict of interest.

Bruntwood, to ensure that Kirk Hill Wind Farm Ltd (the company known as a special purpose vehicle or SPV which owns the wind farm assets and in which both the Coop and Bruntwood are shareholders) to resolve the situation as quickly as possible. We will give careful consideration to any findings and recommend changes as necessary to secure the long-term health of the Coop.

As you may be aware, the issue with both Companies House (for the SPV) and the FCA (for the Coop) relate to the accounts and both parties have now instructed independent accounting advisors and auditors to investigate and resolve the situation.

So have Bruntwood and Ripple jointly advised independent accounting advisors and auditors to look into this or has Ripple engaged one set of advisors and auditors and Bruntswood engaged their own (which is what I would be doing if I was Bruntwood!)

Also it says both parties .... but there are three parties ..... Ripple, The Coop board and Bruntswood .... so which two is it?

Companies House has already agreed to defer action for approximately 8 weeks to enable the SPV to bring the filing requirements up to date.

This might be true, but it might also not be. It is also true that after the first filing (which is now available on companies house) for strike off all companies are given 8 weeks to sort themselves out. So has this been negotiated or are we being told what the standard is? At this point we want cold hard facts not spin.

I know that this must feel like a very unsatisfactory position to many of you and I have received a small number of representations calling for an EGM. Rather than a formal general meeting with a long notice period the board proposes instead a members meeting that can be called more quickly once the situation is clearer. Members would then be entitled to call an EGM afterwards if unsatisfied.

We will look to find a date when we can, and in the meantime, we will send a weekly update with whatever we can tell you until this situation is resolved. Please bear with us as we deal with this significant commitment in addition to our day jobs.

Kirk Hill Coop Board

Nothing here states that they have accepted the small number of representations as valid, it also says long notice period ... which does not appear to hold true to the rules of the coop which apparently say the EGM has to happen within 6 weeks of the EGM threshold being reached.




Basically, I really really want to be wrong .... but I cannot be sure we are not being taken for idiots and this is what worries me.

I am posting this as a worried party and not as someone wanting to troll ..... so please accept the above is based on my own reading around of things I can find (and sometimes miss) ..... I am also the person who got 3 family members to invest in Ripple too ... so I am feeling pretty crappy about that too at the moment.

I dont know enough about any of whats gone on to really comment much, and as its not in sites i have investments in, not really my place, even though i have an interest in the wider acheme. I very much threw the money at them and was happy to have regular updates, waiting for the process to get going.
Tbh until JB said he had been on the chat trying to push them for answers, i didnt even know there was a chat section, and ive not had a look in there yet anyway.

I am annoyed that they moved the goalposts for WB after everyone had invested, and there has not been as many updates as i expected either, but i do know from my own work how slow these things can be, and i also dont want to be bombarded with emails saying today we mowed the grass, tomorrow we clip the hedges etc.

If it wasnt for this site i wouldnt have even known about such issues. And whilst i may be an investor in WB, if the company as a whole is having these issues for other sites, i do expect to be told about them, even if it doesnt affect my site. Yet.
Its just basic transparency and a common courtesy.

[cojmh]

Weekly update from Kirk Hill




Message from the Kirk Hill Coop Board

Dear

I hope you are well and enjoying the recent weather. Whilst there are serious issues to resolve, the wind continues to blow and the savings from your investment in Kirk Hill continue to accumulate. It’s been a busy week for all involved in Kirk Hill Wind Farm.

We know that many of you were very concerned about the strike-off notice issued by Companies House to Kirk Hill Wind Farm Limited, the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) that owns the wind farm. We’re pleased to let you know that this notice has now been lifted. We are also now in direct contact with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which regulates all coops, to agree the timeline for resubmitting the Coop’s accounts.

The auditor appointed by the SPV board has also been appointed to review the Coop’s accounts. The audit team is also working closely with a specialist investigator, appointed by the SPV, to ensure that both entities have robust and accurate accounts that can be submitted as soon as possible. This will rectify matters with both Companies House and the FCA.

As a reminder, Ripple Energy Limited is separate to the Coop and SPV (see diagram below). Now that the wind farm is built, their role is to act as managing agents to both the SPV and Coop. The specialist investigator, who has experience in both renewable energy and financial services, is working with the Ripple team across the whole project to ensure they have rectified matters and that management accounting structures are robust going forward.


As well as looking at the finances, the investigator has visited Kirk Hill to assess the site itself. They found it to be operating as it should and in in line with expectations.

Some members noticed that Turbine 1 (T1) has been offline for periods in recent weeks. Ripple has investigated the fairly high number of pitch and yaw faults and raised these with Enercon for rectification. We’ve been assured that the faults have now been addressed but T1’s performance will be kept under close review.

With regard to the Coop board, we were sorry to receive a resignation this week from one of our newest members, Kate Broughton. She felt she was unable to contribute effectively to the board, particularly during this current situation. We wish Kate well in her future endeavours.

As mentioned last week, we propose to hold an informal member meeting with a date now set for 7pm on Thursday 27th March. The format will be much as it was for the AGM with questions submitted in advance so that we can answer as many as possible in the time available. Ripple will set up and facilitate the process on the Coop’s behalf, and they will join the beginning of the call so they can give an update from their perspective before leaving it to the Coop board and members to discuss matters further.

Ripple will be in touch shortly with further details about the meeting, including how to join the call and how to post questions - either to the Coop board, or to Ripple as the managing agents.

We wish you a good week and will have another update for you in a week’s time.

Best wishes

Kirk Hill Coop Board

[cojmh]

Message posted by Kate B (The board member that resigned):

"Mike and members, I asked the chair to share the following from me “Kate Broughton resigned from the Coop Board on 4 March following her appointment in December 2024. Kate was not able to get assurance that the governance and finances of the Coop are sound. She felt uncomfortable with some decisions the Board was being asked to make, and the ability of the Board to effect change with the information and resources available to it.” I am sorry I felt compelled to resign after being voted on by members - it was a difficult decision."

Link here - https://community.rippleenergy.com/kirk ... qtqrrbG1G4

Just trying to make sure records are kept somewhere else.

[cojmh]

New post from Ripple about their community forum:


The way that the Ripple Community has been used lately by some members has meant we need to make some important changes to the Ripple Community for the safety of all. As many of you will know, the Online Safety Act (OSA) is also effective later this week which adds emphasis to the need for some of these changes.

Therefore, effective later today, members will no longer be able to create posts or make comments on the Ripple Community. If this decision changes in the future we will let you know.

We will continue to regularly communicate updates to members via email, the Ripple Community and the newsfeed on your dashboards.

As a general and final note, we kindly ask that you please be mindful of the comments you post on any forum.

[NoraBatty]

So, reading between the lines as i dont frequent the ripple community boards, members complained about the way ripple was being run, and were trying to get momentum and names to force an AGM, and because of that, they have used the OSA as an excuse to quash dissent?!

Charming.
If there was any doubt about JBs personal experience outlined a page or so ago, then it should now have gone completely.

What an absolutely appalling attitude to have towards investors, due the the problems they have caused by their own actions.

[cojmh]

So, reading between the lines as i dont frequent the ripple community boards, members complained about the way ripple was being run, and were trying to get momentum and names to force an AGM, and because of that, they have used the OSA as an excuse to quash dissent?!

Charming.
If there was any doubt about JBs personal experience outlined a page or so ago, then it should now have gone completely.

What an absolutely appalling attitude to have towards investors, due the the problems they have caused by their own actions.

I have been watching the community forum very closely for the past week or so (since I found out about the strike off notice).

There has been no misbehaving (certainly nothing that would get you in trouble) and almost everything was informative to anyone wanting to read it (although not helpful to Ripple). They were trying to get together some questions for the members meeting. The only thing that might have been a query was whether or not Kate speaking out might have broken some Ripple enforced NDA or something (despite the fact that they did not relay to the members the true nature of Kate leaving)

Ripple have created this situation themselves .... but in the process they have highlighted that there are quite a few other issues that need to be resolved too ..... members have started to cotton on to this so Ripple have tried to stifle it (in my opinion).

I guess I am now forces to look on Facebook as this issue is more important than my dislike of social media.

[NoraBatty]

I do not have a facebook account but i guess, as you say i will have to sign up if there is momentum growing and real issues with transparency regarding Ripple, which does seem to be the case.
They are not instilling confidence with this type of behaviour.
If the issue was Kates post then as board Admins they could have simply deleted the post and put up an explanation that it broke site or NDA rules.

Is there a ripple FB page?