​Frequently Asked Questions

Oceanteam board members and ceo Haico Halbesma answer questions related to various publications, insinuations and allegations that have been published in the media since 2017.
Those have harmed the reputation of the company and have deeply questioned the integrity of the company’s leadership and its related governance and compliance procedures in place. For many reasons ceo Halbesma has never commented, until now.
The answers cover a wide spectrum of issues and are intended to separate the so-called Facts from Fables.
What was your reason to not respond to the various publications and insinuations so far and instead focus on other issues?
It is well known that the industry as a whole has been facing a ‘perfect storm’ of unremitting situations and circumstances. In the past few years that have caused many associated offshore company to falter, or even fail. We have prided ourselves at Oceanteam at being able to respond pro-actively to the overly-aggressive climate/market at any given time, and where many have stumbled, we have managed to go forward positively securing valuable work both for ourselves and our service companies; our track record shows this very clearly.
In recent times this has demanded a considerable amount of our attention to continue to focus on ‘what we are’ - to the benefit of our shareholders, bondholders, and employees - rather than the negative portrayal of our company currently in the press. At the same time, as this unremitting damage and character assignation of us - as board members and individuals - has been prosecuted against us unchecked, this has had a detrimental effect on our reputation. Both as a company and as individuals. The knock-on effect of that is that we have had to put all of our efforts (and time) in trying to keep the company functioning to its optimum, whilst trying to protect our business against the damage and disruption that has been actively circulated mischievously by a small number of aggrieved individuals.
We did initially attempt to redress the balance, but were unable to find a forum that would allow us the platform for a fair and frank response to the misinformation that has been circulating without any legal restrictions on the perpetrators involved. It is with that in mind, that we offer our story to you, so that we can have a ‘fair hearing’, based on clear, accurate and unbiased reporting, and we are grateful for this chance to redress the balance.
You have trusted some of your former key employees. Knowing what you know now what would you do different going forward?
Although my first instincts are to ‘name and shame’ so to speak, and identify those individuals who have created so much trouble for our company, it would not serve our legal position in any forthcoming court actions to do so; the ‘tittle-tattle’ that some have resorted to in the press in order to cover their ineptitude and inabilities to undertake the tasks for which they were hired – and unfortunately in the case of one individual, corrupt and fraudulent practices – we should not be drawn into the same low behaviours. No one envisaged that those that we had appointed to positions of trust and power would turn on the company the way that they have when they were ‘let go’ because they were not and could not fulfil the tasks for which they had been appointed. Unfortunately, as is often the case when you do expose people through dismissal as being unfit for the task, you do inevitably publicise their failures. This then gives those identified little option but to come out ‘on the offensive’ in order to save their damaged reputations; however, it does not follow that they will succeed anywhere else, but it is the only avenue left open to them.
Every small company uses every member of their team to the absolute limits, that is the only way to survive with the present situation in the industry, and I would never expect anyone who works with me to do more than I do; my hours and dedication are intensive, this does place enormous pressure on an individual to assume that those you trust and delegate to, are actually carrying out their roles in the same open and transparent way and can be trusted to remain dedicated and impeccable. Simply because there is not the time available in a day to scrutinise everyone, the best that one can hope for is that you have appointed reliable and trustworthy individuals to those positions of responsibility in the first place.
When the company was first exposed negatively in the media it became clear to all internally that there were ‘bad apples in the barrel’. Our next task was to find out whom, when and what had been working against the company. It appears that we have been abused by one such very senior individual in our organisation, since 2013 in a procurement fraud, and we are grateful to KPMG Bergen for their persistent determination to uncover this in their forensic analysis and investigations in Q2 2017; we have since followed this with further rigorous examination to confirm this evidence in order to seek criminal prosecution.
The fact that this individual was able to operate unchecked for so long is ultimately of course my responsibility as I made the decision to appoint him. However, it does highlight the weakness in those that were trusted to keep the complete financial overview of the company. And may I say, those were very well rewarded for doing so. It is those two individuals who have since been dismissed for failing in their tasks and duties as financial officers/advisors respectively for the company, who have failed to uncover these massive fraudulent practices in the first place. That leads to two questions. Were they aware of these fraudulent activities and in so doing, somehow implicated? Or is it as we believe, through their incompetence and inability to undertake their respective roles that they simply failed to notice? Both of these questions are troubling and have demanded much of our time and resources to try to come to resolutions moving forward. There is and will be pursuant court actions resulting from all of what has followed the dismissal of the CFO in 2016.
Further, the incorrect financial advice that has been received from someone that we trusted to be working towards the best interest of the company, has since proved to be not only flawed, but directly connected towards his own personal financial interests, that has led to a dramatic cash shortfall in the company that should never have happened had we not been misled in the first place; it is to these two individuals that we owe the current negative portrayal in the media, as they are arming others with disinformation in order to protect their failing reputations.
On a positive note, we are determined to move forward and regain our ‘copper-bottom’ reputation, for integrity and delivery. This drive has resulted in; the implementation of even stricter procedures, more extensive codes of ethics, even stricter procurement practices, and the obvious replacement of certain members of staff. However, we remain a company working in a volatile international business environment so a level of trust is needed even though there can be times when this is difficult to maintain. Being entrepreneurs we continue to look for opportunities and positives; we remain eager to take the business forward into the ‘’new’’ market that has shaped itself.
It is important to note here, that we are extremely grateful to those that we employ and those who have stood by us through these difficult times; their loyalty and determination to support Oceanteam as a whole cannot be understated. I do feel that those who have been least served through the dramatic downturn to investors, namely the shareholders, have been played by the ‘mischief-making’ of those already identified in my answers.
It is to those investors that I offer my condolences, they know only too well, had this not been allowed to escalate beyond proportion in the media, that the damage they have suffered would have been limited. We were then at 8 NOK at climbing in good spirits and now less than 1 NOK at mixed spirits.
Additionally, the enormous amount of time and financial resources that have been expended as a consequence, and as well as the damage done to the reputation of the company are incalculable.
Before going back the procurement fraud issue (that was being discovered during recent investigations initiated by the board), what is your view on the verdict of Bergen Court on the minority shareholders demanding an investigation into related party transactions concerning your father and yourself?
I respect the verdict of the court, however, the companies’ legal advisors, the board and myself; see significant errors in the verdict. That is a reason to appeal, nothing else. Having said that, the final verdict will be followed and as we have nothing to hide we are confident to see a positive outcome in the end.
There are individuals involved who are making speculative and unfounded statements simply to meet their own agenda and interests. One in particular has been extremely intimidating and disrespectful on the few occasions that I have come into contact with him, and he makes no reservations in writing libellous statements regarding myself, and the company, on his public blog. I agree we are allowed freedom of speech, but there should be a right of reply and a right to put your own case before those that judge the story in the media.
Please note that I have invited this individual more than once for meetings however he has declined to do so. This makes communication extremely difficult and does not allow for any mediation of opinion; maybe he is deterred by the difference in ‘mother-tongue’, background and culture. However, knowing what I know now, if we do meet with this gentleman I will have to choose my words carefully. That said, the invitation still stands and I have a lot of respect for his persistence and changes and improvement that he already triggered within the company with his actions.
However, a better understanding of the reasons why certain transactions were done is only possible through careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding them, and the time in which they were made.
For example, when we rented the office in Amsterdam, the company had made the decision to scale up and develop its main location for operational and commercial management in the Netherlands in line with our business plan. However at the time it was not foreseen that the Mexican market would deteriorate so dramatically in such a short time and the negative development of the market and the consequences it had on the business plan made. If the plans were achieved and the markets would not have turned, the size and rent would have never been an issue. The office was large, close to 500m2, a ‘high-end’ office, very representative and at a prime location in the city of Amsterdam.
The Monaco address was considered for the benefits of marketing and sales purposes. Our clients and potential clients reside on a regular basis in the area and the location fitted well with our plans. My father and myself already had a company registered there – Challenger Management, which was used as a starting point for developing Oceanteam Monaco. Consequently this aided the process for securing; networks, permits, office space and work permits, swiftly.

Mexico. In 2014, my father (Hessel Halbesma) and I were offered by Diavaz to set up a 40/60 joint venture company (JV) with the aim to be build a ‘vertically-integrated’ Mexican Offshore Service company.

It was the understanding that Diavaz would put all their future offshore marine maintenance and other contracts through the JV.

At that moment Diavaz had approximately 12 IRM light construction vessels plus additional support vessels working offshore Mexico. All with chartered in third party vessels. The plan was to replace at least 50 to 60% of these chartered in vessels with JV owned and controlled vessels.

The potential was quite large. The JV was supposed to operate about 8 to 12 spreads by 2020.

Through Feastwood, we reported this to the board of Oceanteam, discussed this at length, and came to the conclusion that it would be best for all stakeholders concerned, to integrate the JV in Oceanteam.

Feastwood proposed to bring this into Oceanteam at a 3% commission of the net revenue of the JV plus a lump sum, under the assumption that Oceanteam would fund the plans of the JV.

Initially, the Oceanteam board agreed. But on realising that the potential payments to be made were 3 %, the board renegotiated the agreed contract which was documented accordingly.

As Feastwood assumed the contracts were agreed, the JV, now named DOT (Diavaz-Oceanteam) was subsequently incorporated together with Diavaz and besides two FSV’s a major vessel named MPSV Tampamachoco 1 was ordered against a 7 to 10 year charter commitment from Diavaz.

The then CFO and his advisors orchestrated the financial side of this deal. The renegotiated contract comprised of a ‘lump sum’ and quarterly payments which were planned to be approved by the EGM in May 2015.

However, the then CFO came up with the alternative solution (again well documented) to use the hourly rates instead, which according to him and his advisors did not need to be approved by the EGM, as it could be done with a service contract between Feastwood and Oceanteam.
In the subsequent course of events and all that occurred - which are all well documented and completely transparent to any investigation - what has become clear, is that it was due to incorrect financial advice a number of errors in the accounting procedure made by our officer (based on financial advice from others) that led to incorrect procedures and reporting. All of which we have since rectified and made public; none of the actions undertaken at anytime were a deliberate intention to mislead, or to conduct fraud by the company.
With the final result that Oceanteam in effect acquired DOT free of charge.
You announced last week some drastic steps for a cross border merger which will result most likely in a de-listing of the company.
Due to all the negative press, combined with our lack of auditors at present, we have been summoned by Bronnoysund to present a solution by 15 April 2018 and otherwise the case is handed over to a judge who can decide to dissolve the company. This, I believe, is not in the best interests of any of the stakeholders.
Also the expectation is that through the cross border merger the threshold Oslo Stock Exchange cannot be met to relist the new entity. The interests of all stakeholders and especially minority shareholders are carefully considered in the process. Discussions with the different parties involved have started.
Are the two issues, verdict Bergen Court and your announcement of the cross merger connected and are you trying to get out of the investigation as suggested in the papers?
Both issues are not connected at all. The suggestion is irrelevant.
We have been ordered to find a solution or otherwise there is a high chance that the company will be dissolved which leads to significant loss of value and personal damage for our employees. Besides, I have nothing to hide and will respect the final outcome of the legal process started by the minority shareholders under the leadership of Mr Nymo and take that very seriously.
The cross-border merger idea is brought forward to solve a different issue altogether and currently we have no other solution at the table. A shareholders meeting is called as soon as practicably possible, whereby, obviously the interests of minority shareholders and governance is an important issue to consider. And if shareholders vote the proposal down, the consequences can be severe for the company going forward. I therefore expect that the shareholders will act responsibly. This company is worth it and this is the better option for all stakeholders.

What is your view on the statements that have been made by Mr Nymo that you and your father have been stealing from the company?
Any statement in this direction is incorrect and unfounded. All charges made since the start of the company have been extensively investigated and approved by the auditors, CFO, board and shareholders. Also the FSA conducted a thorough investigation.
Any fraudulent practices that have occurred in the company, until recent events, were completely unknown to myself and my father and we as individuals have never undertaken such practices; as I have stated in my previous answers we have now uncovered the main individual concerned and we are pursuing criminal prosecution.
In 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 my father and myself having followed the advice received from our then CFO and advisors on these matters, subsequently executed their advice. It is important to note that during this period excessive amounts of work had been performed as well, in order to keep the company on track during and after the crisis caused by/and resulting in the then CFO’s dismissal . Early 2014, as a result, in certain parts of our business we lost about 85% of our turnover in the first three months of that year. Oceanteam was forced to adjust and find new sources of income rapidly. And as a matter of fact, we have succeeded to do so.
In the press there are allegations in this respect as well that are simply not correct. Mr Nymo may have a different view on this. Although I respect his opinion, it doesn’t mean that I agree. Nor should his view automatically be assumed to be correct. If an investigation will take place, everything can be documented again since it has already been reported and disclosed before. But if that’s what it takes to restore our business and personal reputation, so be it.
Note that in our disclosures we have explained all ins and outs extensively, so all that has and has not been done. For example the insinuations made that our board members are not independent, or that shareholders are acting in concert, is simply not correct. Mrs Int Pos and Mr James Hill have been independent since they started. External advisors have confirmed this over and over again. And yes it is correct that Mrs Int Pos also lives in Amsterdam. And yes it is correct that Mr James Hill lives in Monaco like my father. But I believe that is not against good governance or even illegal.
The same applies for two other main shareholders in the company named Mr Oostendorp of Naktovia Holding Ltd, and Mr Van Balkom of Pershing LLC, also Dutch citizens. They personally find that the insinuations are simply incorrect, disrespectful and out of order. And note that I do not work in concert with either Naktovia, or Pershing, as has been insinuated by Mr Nymo or Mr Astrup of Storm Capital who started these unfounded insinuations and false allegations and has been repeating them.

Having said that: how and what did you charge for? Explain the underlying process?
During my period so far I have been remunerated and compensated for three activities: Management fees, incentives and expenses. Both fees and incentives are charged subject to approval of each annual shareholders meeting (AGM). In case the shareholders do not approve the concerned amounts they will be paid back. Incentive fees are approved by the board subject to shareholders approval.
In 2017 an incentive was awarded for delivery of the financial restructuring. However, we found out that the restructuring proved to be incomplete. Apparently Mr Bohn at that time responsible for the restructuring together with banks had created a loophole to cash starve the mother company. This had never been the intention and objective. For that reason I myself took the initiative to terminate the agreed incentive of Euro 300.000.
At the same time, and instead of converting the outstanding balances into a long-term loan, the balances had become payable and were booked in the creditors instead solving the balance with soft payment conditions. In the end, by crediting the incentive, the company saved Euro 300.000 in restructuring cost.
An incentive awarded in 2015 remains unpaid and I have a significant balance outstanding of management fees to support the company. I charge my fees through two companies, namely Heer Holland BV and Feastwood Holdings Ltd and disclose this accordingly.
Furthermore it is correct – as stated in the Norwegian media - that a so-called ‘parachute clause’ is part of my management contract. However it is incorrect that this should be considered as a poison pill for the company.
My father’s charges have all been documented, and have been approved by KPMG Bergen, board and shareholders, year on year. For these payments he works and travels extensively, acquiring; clients, projects, partnerships, new geographical areas, concepts, systems, IP and a tremendous amount of support travelling the world for Oceanteam.
His charges also run through Feastwood Holdings Ltd and in 2015 onwards hourly rates have brought in line with market terms. As said, the concerned structure and mechanism was advised by then CFO and confirmed by KPMG Bergen.
The persistence and commitment of myself, and my father, has assured that the company could refinance on the term in place today. The majority of our peer companies have had to make severe financial accommodations in order to continue. Our debt, both bank and bond, is being repaid in full because the projections of the company are such that it can allow for doing so. Terms had to be adjusted that is correct, but not at the expense of the shareholders.
When we concluded the main terms with the bondholders on refinancing the company in December 2016 - which was subsequently made effective in June 2017 - the bondholders insisted, as part of the package - that my father and I would stay on board and continue our leadership. The added stipulations included that as shareholders we were capped to Halbesma (~36%) with additional caps on fees and incentives paid.
Since the completion of the financial restructuring the maximum charge per annum for the chairman is USD 250.000 and ceo USD 450.000.
To further clarify this: there is no incentive scheme applicable to the chairman and/or ceo. The incentive is clear; equity value on an approximate 36% stake in the company. And if any expenses are paid by the company which are considered private, they are offset on a monthly basis against payment of management fees.
Since Mr Astrup of Storm Capital accused the company of poor corporate governance, have you made any changes besides releasing Mr Bohn from his duties?
All governance rules and code of ethics have been revisited and made to an even higher standard and are being followed to the letter. As a consequence, additional training is being provided to all.
Upon the advice of and introduced by the bondholders, the company engaged in a consultancy company named FTI to analyse and propose further cost savings within the company. All the findings have been executed, savings are being achieved and measures have been implemented faster, and additional savings compared to the report have already been executed;
A bondholder representative was introduced and presented as new member of the Oceanteam board. Mr Diederik Legger has already made a substantial contribution and has worked very diligently and hard to improve the results for all stakeholders involved.
Mr Bohn has commenced court proceedings, which, in our opinion, are unlawful and incorrect. Once this case is concluded we can disclose more information.
A new CFO Mr Jos van Dijk has joined the company. He has vast industry expertise and knowhow, and we already see the positive effects of his appointment. Together with the board he is introducing and enforcing strict rules and procedures within our company.
You stated more than once that the issue of related party charges created around you and your father was already closed. Can you elaborate more on the issues related to KPMG’s refusal to give a clean opinion regarding the 2016 accounts?
Around 80 companies were shortlisted by KPMG Bergen for review and at the time we had to close the annual accounts 2016 only two parties remained on the list on which the ultimately beneficial owner could not be identified in time before issue of the accounts. As a consequence KPMG Bergen decided that it could sign off on the account, however without providing a qualified opinion.
It is correct that the beneficial owners were hard to trace. Please understand that we operate globally and we have put a tremendous amount of time and effort into it to trace the requested information. Also realise that in certain areas and for certain companies the type of information that was needed is harder to obtain than others.
In effect, the information on two parties remained outstanding. One a Mexican Crewing company that we have been working with for more than 10 years and a company named Emporos Offshore Ltd (recently renamed to Bell Offshore Ltd) based in Singapore. Since we have managed to obtain the information and have provided this to KPMG Bergen as well.
Due to the persistence of KPMG Bergen, we found out that Emporos Offshore Ltd, \ turned out to be 100% owned, through a Dutch entity named Bovando BV, by the managing director of our Solutions division. A key employee not affiliated in any way to the Halbesma family. Once this was examined further, it became clear that a substantial amount of time and resources were being charged and it was of such a scale that we decided to suspend Lex van Doorn as a director and engage a forensic accountancy team to go through all related party transactions again independently.
Due to complexity and thoroughness that a process like that requires, it will take time and we now expect a report by end March 2018. After that we can say for sure which other companies and persons are involved and decide upon what legal action to take. It is already clear this started in 2013 when then CFO Mr Skulstad was still working for Oceanteam.
 At this point we cannot comment on questions as to whether Mr Skulstad was involved with or aware of this situation, or whether the perpetrator was able to conceal his actions from him as well.
Lex van Doorn has been an employee for nearly 10 years. Immediately following the suspension of Mr Lex van Doorn, his brother, Mr Jan van Doorn, who had worked as a technical manager at Oceanteam Solutions since 2013, resigned and started working for the Dutch Steel Fabricators group of companies. At present, we have reason to believe that this new company has infringed on our intellectual property, with regard to one of our technological applications. As a consequence we will be seeking legal redress.
Our conclusion is that KPMG Bergen signing the 2016 accounts has supported our claims to being honest, fair and transparent in all of our business and personal dealings. Unfortunately, we have been subjected to unfair abuse and character assignation by a small group of individuals, when in fact their actions should have been directed at the corruption of one individual, who was able to conceal his fraudulent dealings not just from ourselves, but also from our CFO at that time.
Are Mr van Doorn and his brother the only ones involved in this scheme?
No, but I cannot disclose yet more details. Once the forensic report is completed new information will be disclosed.
Did the procurement fraud initiated by Mr Van Doorn and his brother have any other effects and has the company responded to this?
The effects have been significant and I believe we have scratched only the surface of what has really happened in this fraudulent scheme. We have initially collected all relevant information silently to avoid further destruction of evidence and worked systematically.
Where there was doubt with suppliers or employees we have taken appropriate actions and still do as we learn more.
The role of your ex CFO Skulstad is unclear, can you explain, what was his role and responsibility and do you consider him to be part of the procurement fraud, internal procedure when and why did you decide to release him from his duties?
As said, once the forensic report is completed new information will be disclosed.
On Mr Skulstad I can say the following now. A CFO role is key within a company as a CFO is responsible for the internal control and checks and balances and the like. In May 2015 we were advised by KPMG Bergen again that our internal control system needed improvement but above all that they did not believe Mr Skulstad was capable enough for his job and to implement the needed changes; they doubted his ability overall. Together with the board we decided to remove him from his position and offered him a new role within the organisation more related to his skill set and level. Even though he worked and lived in Monaco for the last few years while enjoying the favourable tax incentives and weather, Mr Skulstad called in sick the next day and received a redundancy package both under Monaco and Norwegian Law Oceanteam continued to pay for his apartment in Monaco until the end of his tenure.
From that moment onward, I took over the role as CFO until the current CFO, Jos van Dijk started. As one might imagine, the role was an intensive one after the dismissal of Mr Skulstad. It required from me to work twice my normal hours.

Financial restructuring
Can you elaborate on the financial restructuring you initiated in October 2016, how was the process, who managed this and what was the initial outcome?
We announced the start of the process in October 2016 and concluded main terms with the bondholders in December 2016. The foundation for the work to be done was laid end 2015, early 2016 which started with filling the company with work and secured cash flow. Contracts were awarded in Solutions and for our main vessels and a deleveraging process started.
In parallel and in discussion with the lenders of our two remaining CSV’s we were engaged to refinance the vessels. Also based on a purchase option signed 5 years earlier with McDermott, we bought the remaining 25% ownership of vessel North Ocean 105 which proceeds allocation were part of the bondholders deal and deleveraging strategy.
A consultant named Wilhelm Bohn, engaged by Oceanteam, managed the process with the bondholders and banks and the sale of the North Ocean 105 was managed by myself.
The initial outcome looked good and a long-term sustainable company was created. Through an oversight of Mr Bohn the main assumption of the financial restructuring was not met i.e. the access cash from the Construction Support Vessel contracts would stream as dividend to the mother company to pay interest to the bondholders, G&A and as investment to develop the company further such that it can repay all its debt as planned in due course.
Although being the main mutually agreed assumption by the parties involved, the dividends did not come as had happened over the last ten years. The company has been cash starved ever since while having very large cash reserves that are currently retained in the Shipping companies by the lenders even though the company is in full compliance with all its covenants. The real problem is the cycle the industry is in and all the parties are suffering from.
So until today, having our two main assets under contract creating significant cash flows, we still have this problem that needs a resolution at some point. The negative press around the company just creates another hurdle, and subsequent time to respond, all of which detracts from ‘what we are’ as a company, and trying to get on with the job. And then we are at the point where I started my opening answer.
How have you managed all this so far, what did you change ever since and did all this have an effect on your incentive?
The company has managed to survive so far by cutting additional cost, selling assets and creating new cash streams. And has to continue to do so until the cash flow and dividend stream issue is resolved.
I have proposed to credit my incentive that was awarded by the board for the financial restructuring and the board has approved such proposal. I do not believe we are there yet and I strongly feel this incentive is not correct to claim. The amount credited is Euro 300.000.
All transactions that good be perceived as related party transactions are required to go through an even more stringent approval process than before. And if done at all, no new incentive schemes have been agreed to.
All other matters concerning audit, related parties, certain disclosure requirements and the like have been extensively investigated by the FSA and Oslo Stock Exchange. We consider these matters closed until the court makes a final decision. Also, there are no other related parties agreements as already disclosed.
In the aftermath what has been the response of Mr Bohn and how did you deal with this?
Obviously, Mr Bohn claims even more money. Even though he had a consultancy agreement, he claims to have been an employee of the company and so on. Oceanteam disputed his unlawful claim and subsequently Mr Bohn has started legal proceedings. We look forward to concluding those, combined with a counter-claim for damages for the lack of diligence in the performance of his services that resulted in consequential losses. In addition we have learned through the documents of Mr Nymo that both Consultant Bohn and ex CFO Skulstad have provided Mr Nymo with confidential information. Of course we have notified them accordingly. Once this further develops and if we can, we will disclose further information.
How is the company currently doing and what are your plans?
Under the circumstances we are doing ok. The negative press and insinuations made against us have had negative effects on the business, on contracts awarded, on staff morale and the like. But every day we are serving our clients to the best of our ability. Our vessels are working and the company generates positive cash flow overall.
The market seems to be turning and we have managed to open up new markets and territories. Once the dust settles we will have a lean and clean company that is ready for a new cycle and to pay back its debts. Out of all this negativity there will be positivity.
In addition we have some exciting new solutions in the pipeline though our partnership with KCI, Bourbon, Diavaz to name a few.
We have a clear strategy and plan. So in my view we need to close all these matters soonest and move on and start creating value again for all of our stakeholders. I am convinced that I have got every incentive and determination needed to do just that.

Amsterdam, 24 February 2018

Haico Halbesma