Aquila European Renewables (AERI) says its end June NAV was €0.386, down from €0.567 at the end of December 2025. €0.1439 of that fall relates to the capital return to shareholders that was made earlier this year. There is no dividend for Q2 2026, partly because of problems getting cash out of AERI’s subsidiaries (see below). The NAV total return was -6.4%.

Part of the reason for that is weaker power price forecasts for Spain and Portugal. However, operating performance issues have knocked the valuation as well, with portfolio production over 21% below budget. Some of this lies outside of the company’s control – too much power being produced from solar energy led to the grid rejecting power [the answer to this is more storage]. The company’s Olhava wind farm underperformed by 48.0% and it might be that some compensation can be extracted from the operations and maintenance (O&M) provider.

Olhava has breached the financial covenants related to its senior debt facility and needed a €0.7m shareholder loan. Albeniz is in breach of its debt service coverage ratio covenant, which means that the company cannot extract cash from any of its Spanish investments. That has been compounded by the structure of Albeniz’s baseload power purchase agreement – a widening gap between baseload power prices and the solar prices that Albeniz achieves ate into revenues.

At The Rock, while production was above budget, the company has been hit by potential tax on the litigation proceeds it received in 2025. On 5 June 2026 the Hålogaland Court of Appeal ruled that the original licence and expropriation decisions for The Rock wind farm are invalid, concluding that the authorities did not carry out a sufficiently thorough assessment of the impact on Sami reindeer herding. The court expressly stated that the ruling does not require the wind farm to be shut down or dismantled and that operations can continue while the matter is reconsidered by the authorities. The investment adviser is deciding whether to appeal to the Supreme Court in Norway or try to renegotiate the license.

The row between the board and the investment adviser ( Aquila Capital Investmentgesellschaft mbH or “ACI”) rumbles on. In this statement, the board says that “shareholders should treat ACI’s valuation of the portfolio with a significant degree of caution”. The board points out that ACI made a bid for the assets (on behalf of other funds that it manages) at a significant discount to this valuation.

The board goes on to say “ACI has declined to provide the board with any recommendation or analysis of that offer, and this has not been reflected in the 30 June 2026 NAV. The board considers this to represent a clear conflict of interest which ACI has not adequately addressed.

“The board is further concerned that ACI is not committing sufficient resource to support the company through its managed wind-down. In particular, delays attributable to ACI in supporting completion of due diligence are placing potential sales of the company’s assets at risk, to the detriment of shareholders who are relying on an orderly, value-maximising realisation process.

“Separately, and notwithstanding the concerns set out above, ACI has issued a formal notice threatening legal proceedings against the company in respect of disputed fees. The board considers ACI’s conduct, taken as a whole, to fall well short of the standard shareholders are entitled to expect of an investment adviser during a managed wind-down.”

Robert Naylor, the chair of the company, said “The investment adviser cannot have it both ways. It is charging this company fees on valuations it will not confirm are true and fair, while at the same time seeking to acquire the company’s assets, on behalf of other funds it manages, at a material discount to that same valuation. Its unwillingness to commit adequate resource is now obstructing other buyers from completing due diligence on assets our shareholders need to see realised and it is simultaneously threatening this company with legal proceedings over fees that remain firmly in dispute. Shareholders are entitled to ask why.”