Jump to content

Dispute at Pillings


andy the hammer

Featured Posts

I think it's probably best then for us all to freeze the thread, and come back in about 3-4weeks. By then, it will all be kicking off one way or the other.

 

Dean, you don't have to read it. Come back to this thread in four weeks

 

Richard

Edited by RLWP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

MtB. I'm not certain I was the one who suggested that the IP's fees come out of asset sales. I have found a document at http://www.realbusinessrescue.co.uk/business-liquidation-and-bankruptcy/disadvantages

which remarks "In a voluntary liquidation, these expenses, along with the cost of appointing an insolvency practitioner, are all covered by the directors." and I understand that QMP entered a Creditor's Voluntary Liquidation. The document is well worth a quick read.

 

 

From your link:

 

If it can be shown that the directors used (voluntary) liquidation with the sole intention of not repaying creditors, they may be held personally liable for the company debts.

 

I imagine you mean this bit in particular?

 

 

MtB

 

 

 

(Edit to remove weird multiple quotes.)

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

From your link:

 

If it can be shown that the directors used (voluntary) liquidation with the sole intention of not repaying creditors, they may be held personally liable for the company debts.

 

I imagine you mean this bit in particular?

 

 

MtB

 

 

 

(Edit to remove weird multiple quotes.)

 

MtB. Actually, I was not referring to any particular point other that the one I quoted in respect of IP remuneration. I have also referenced another more weighty document at http://www.ts-p.co.uk/uploaded/publications/information_sheets/Corporate_Commercial/directors_responsibilities_avoiding_the_wrongful_trading_trap.pdf which makes clear that the responsibilities of a director in respect of their past management activities in a company in liquidation do not evaporate when that company enters liquidation. nor by their resignation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Dean, I think you are equating directorships with ownership. A company is a separate legal entity from its directors (and from its shareholders). I director does not even need to own shares in his company, he is often an ordinary employee albeit one with special powers and responsibilities which if abused can result in the director becoming personally liable for the financial consequences of his decisions.

 

The plan is for RR never to own the marina. Ownership is intended by PL to be transferred to No 750 Leicester Ltd. A company is owned collectively by its shareholders. A majority shareholder gets to call the shots by out-voting all the other shareholders in decision making, and the majority shareholder in No 750 Leicester Ltd will be QMH as I understand it, so QMH will control No 750 Leicester Ltd.

 

 

MtB

 

MtB. In practice, of course, the day-to-day management of any company rests with the directors not with the shareholders. It is the directors who carry the legal responsibility for trading and financial practices and whose conduct is up for examination where a liquidation occurs. This is why the notion of a Shadow Director is so important and why someone performing such a role falls squarely within the scope of an IP's investigatory powers despite the former holding no official management office.

 

Quite why the person named is willing to take up a management appointment in the new company when, as far as we are aware, he is of tender years and not possessed of any shareholding is something of a mystery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Steadman has calculated, with no regard for the creditors, that the likely insolvency costs to himself of dealing with QMP would be less than the debt it owes and therefore the cheapest of two bad options.

 

Although some may speculate that he lacks a moral compass in this regard it doesn't mean he got his maths wrong as it would appear that QMP is a relatively simple case for the IP. Having calculated that the Marina under new ownership would have to be granted a new access deal as a matter of course whoever was at the reins of the new company, taking this option might have appeared on paper to be the way forward, I expect he's privately quite alarmed at the way things are progressing.

Edited by Grace & Favour
Clarified a meaning
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

MtB. Actually, I was not referring to any particular point other that the one I quoted in respect of IP remuneration. I have also referenced another more weighty document at http://www.ts-p.co.uk/uploaded/publications/information_sheets/Corporate_Commercial/directors_responsibilities_avoiding_the_wrongful_trading_trap.pdf which makes clear that the responsibilities of a director in respect of their past management activities in a company in liquidation do not evaporate when that company enters liquidation. nor by their resignation.

 

Spooooky. That link is to a document published by a firm of solicitors which acted for the vendor when the memsahib and I bought our house.

The vendor was also in the process of liquidating his business at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

MtB. In practice, of course, the day-to-day management of any company rests with the directors not with the shareholders.

 

True, but decisions made by the director(s) must be made in accordance with the policies of the shareholder(s). If not, the shareholders can force their views onto the directors by voting at extraordinary general meetings, their ultimate power being to appoint different directors who WILL tow the line.

 

The new boy might be a 'high flyer', a new protogé of Mr Steadman being trained up to replace Lillie Junior. As a law student he must fully understand what he is getting into although students of any type can be a bit naïve. He may alternatively be there to be groomed as the fall guy. Or both!

 

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find fascinating in all this is that excluding Pillingslock, csh and a couple of others who appear at the very least to act as stooges, we have heard very little from all of these 250 happy clients. The few clients we have heard from either directly or indirectly are clearly not "happy" as they are either asking questions or are already voting with their feet. I would have thought that by now if these happy boaters actually existed we would at least have heard from a few more of them, possibly aided by the PLM PR machine...

 

I would like to think that this thread has at the very least acted as a kind of policeman cross wake-up-call to these boaters, who are the ones MOST affected by the whole debacle. I think it also bears repeating that they are not the only ones affected, however, as all boaters are affected by matters which have influence on CaRT's ability to raise funds, and in turn, the licence fees; furthermore any boaters who for whatever reason find themselves seeking moorings in the Soar area will also be directly affected for the foreseeable future, either by availability or cost issues. This therefore gives those of us not directly caught up in dealings with PLM/QMP/QMH absolute legitimacy in discussion of the situation.

 

On the subject of costs, I have to say two things. Firstly, as a businessman I find the whole "it's someone else's fault because the contract I signed was too onerous and my figures were too optimistic based on information supplied by someone else" argument totally facile. If I sign an agreement, no matter what that might be, then it's my problem even if the other party is rubbing their hands in glee at my stupidity. Secondly, there seems to be a perception that somehow the NAA is artificially inflating costs to boaters. Rubbish. If the NAA is there to allow CaRT to replace a funding stream which has been withdrawn from them by agreeing to a new marina, then the overall effect is neutral. I haven't yet seen any calculations which show that CaRT have made any EXTRA money from the existence of NAAs at all; on the contrary, the naysayers seem simply to rely on continued bleating to provide the weight of an argument.

 

I will be more than happy to eat my words if someone can actually show me a robust calculation to the contrary, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the preceding 4000+ posts, consisting mostly of amateur sleuthing, lawyering and guesswork about what might or might not happen to the ownership of this benighted marina, has anybody weighed up what the C&RT's alternatives are? If they blockade the place, boaters there have a choice, to either stay or go. If they stay, they have been told they do not have to pay a licence, which incurs a financial loss to the C&RT. In addition, this will almost certainly result in bad publicity, as the boaters are completely innocent parties in this mess. (It's also my belief that there will be quite a few boaters who never move their boats and will be more than happy with that arrangement.) With the marina then blocked and no agreement forthcoming with the current "management", C&RT obviously cannot claim any money for a NAA, which means further loss.

If the marina does eventually get offered by the IP, he's not going to find it easy to obtain a sale, what with the place's "history" and the current financial climate and, when he does, any new owner will surely negotiate for a fresh NAA, meaning another hiatus before cash starts to go the C&RT's way.

A lot of people may not wish to hear this, but aren't the C&RT going to have to take a pragmatic view of this and, for better or worse, do a fairly prompt deal with the current lot? If they don't, then what?

A bird in the hand etc.

Edited by johnthebridge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What I find fascinating in all this is that excluding Pillingslock, csh and a couple of others who appear at the very least to act as stooges, we have heard very little from all of these 250 happy clients. The few clients we have heard from either directly or indirectly are clearly not "happy" as they are either asking questions or are already voting with their feet. I would have thought that by now if these happy boaters actually existed we would at least have heard from a few more of them, possibly aided by the PLM PR machine..

 

 

 

When I moored at PLM and got talking to people ,I found only a couple who were forum members .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the marina then blocked and no agreement forthcoming with the current "management", C&RT obviously cannot claim any money for a NAA, which means further loss.

 

Not really. Once the marina is permanently blocked off CRT will be able to replace the lost income by reinstating the 30 or so online moorings they cancelled and took away, as their side of the NAA.

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I moored at PLM and got talking to people ,I found only a couple who were forum members .

 

I understand that. My genuine surprise is simply that given the current kerfuffling that more haven't taken an active part in the discussions - no matter which "side" they feel they want to take.

 

Oh - btw - I'm patenting "kerfuffling" smile.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not really. Once the marina is permanently blocked off CRT will be able to replace the lost income by reinstating the 30 or so online moorings they cancelled and took away, as their side of the NAA.

 

MtB

 

Did they actually take them away though? That is the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not really. Once the marina is permanently blocked off CRT will be able to replace the lost income by reinstating the 30 or so online moorings they cancelled and took away, as their side of the NAA.

 

MtB

Sure they can, but that will take time to do and, as I think it unlikely those bankside moorings will be taken up by any ex-Pillings marina dwellers, the C&RT will have to find new customers through their current scheme. Surely there's a greater imperative, to get some cash in fast? Or at least not lose any more than they already have.....

And again, what will they do in the long term if they blockade it? How long will the blockade last? I can't see that going down too well in the publicity stakes. You can imagine the headlines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

DeanS. CRT actually publish a sample NAA at https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/266.pdf which, interestingly enough, carries Mr Spencer's name at the bottom. It dates from 2005. Interestingly enough, it contains a provision that an NAA "Is transferable to another party who is the freehold owner or head lessee of the whole marina with CRT consent (such consent not be unreasonably withheld or delayed). "

 

Many pages ago there were various references to CRT being required not to unreasonably withhold permission for an NAA. This is not what the sample agreement says in that it makes quite clear that not unreasonably withholding permission refers to the transfer of an NAA from one party to another. In the present case, QMP is no more and the original NAA is dead and buried which means there is nothing to transfer.

 

The sample agreement is very lightweight and it is highly probable that behind it lays one or more contractual agreements which set out the responsibilities of the contracting parties in terms more acceptable to 'mLearned friends. CRT would, one assumes, be able to vary the terms when negotiating any new NAA with any other party although always within the terms of the Transport Act mentioned.

I recall from earlier in this thread that this is what Pillings was relying on happening. But as stated the NAA was terminated, presumably this changes everything

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the preceding 4000+ posts, consisting mostly of amateur sleuthing, lawyering and guesswork about what might or might not happen to the ownership of this benighted marina, has anybody weighed up what the C&RT's alternatives are? .......

If the marina does eventually get offered by the IP, he's not going to find it easy to obtain a sale, what with the place's "history" and the current financial climate and, when he does, any new owner will surely negotiate for a fresh NAA, meaning another hiatus before cash starts to go the C&RT's way.

A lot of people may not wish to hear this, but aren't the C&RT going to have to take a pragmatic view of this and, for better or worse, do a fairly prompt deal with the current lot? If they don't, then what?

A bird in the hand etc.

I can't agree that C&RT can afford to take a "pragmatic" view, without setting a very dangerous precedent. How many other marina management teams would look at this and decide that they also could just withhold the NAA payments? And as regards their income stream, they can perfectly legitimately re-instate the online moorings which were removed when the marina opened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>snip<<

A lot of people may not wish to hear this, but aren't the C&RT going to have to take a pragmatic view of this and, for better or worse, do a fairly prompt deal with the current lot? If they don't, then what?

A bird in the hand etc.

Having witnessed many not-too-dissimilar company collapses in different industries, it is not uncommon for those in such a position to be sold, lock, stock and barrel, to an aquisitive company/group already in the industry, with an excellent reputation and experienced in running such a business successfully.

Indeed, if it wished, I see no reason why CRT could not buy the site, and then sublet it to an operator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will CaRT enter into a new NAA agreement with any business concern backed/owned by Steadman and

P Lillie ?

 

From the Notes to the Abbreviated Accounts of Quorn Marina Properties 30th June 2012:-

 

Quote

"1.2 Going Concern

The accounts have been prepared on a going concern basis on an understanding that the parent company, other group company and M Steadman will continue to financially support the company until sufficient future rental income is received to repay them. "

 

A new agreement would not be worth the paper it was written on.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the preceding 4000+ posts, consisting mostly of amateur sleuthing, lawyering and guesswork about what might or might not happen to the ownership of this benighted marina, has anybody weighed up what the C&RT's alternatives are? If they blockade the place, boaters there have a choice, to either stay or go. If they stay, they have been told they do not have to pay a licence, which incurs a financial loss to the C&RT. In addition, this will almost certainly result in bad publicity, as the boaters are completely innocent parties in this mess. (It's also my belief that there will be quite a few boaters who never move their boats and will be more than happy with that arrangement.) With the marina then blocked and no agreement forthcoming with the current "management", C&RT obviously cannot claim any money for a NAA, which means further loss.

If the marina does eventually get offered by the IP, he's not going to find it easy to obtain a sale, what with the place's "history" and the current financial climate and, when he does, any new owner will surely negotiate for a fresh NAA, meaning another hiatus before cash starts to go the C&RT's way.

A lot of people may not wish to hear this, but aren't the C&RT going to have to take a pragmatic view of this and, for better or worse, do a fairly prompt deal with the current lot? If they don't, then what?

A bird in the hand etc.

 

It seems to me that CRT are already taking an entirely pragmatic view. Post 4013 reiterates the point that BW closed off a number of moorings when the NAA agreement was signed and as this agreement is effectively a dead duck, will be perfectly entitles to re-establish those moorings. It has only just occurred that not only are CRT looking at a £185,000 write-off in respect of the unpaid bill with QMP but have also lost the revenue for the 30 or so moorings they abolished as part of that NAA. Quite what these moorings would have earned in terms of revenue but over five years the sum is not inconsiderable and could well exceed £100,000.

 

Although those participating in this forum do not in any way constitute a scientific sample, it does seem that sympathy for the invidious position in which CRT find themselves, and for those moorers caught up in a situation not of their making is rather more marked than any notion that CRT represent, t quote the article recently referenced, "the Devil Incarnate".

 

I one supplier is permitted to ignore their legal obligations then a precedent is created which will not only engender a willingness in others to "try their hand" but may also result in an additional burden on the boating community, myself included, of whom many will regard a refusal to meet an obligation freely entered into as rather less than honourable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure they can, but that will take time to do and, as I think it unlikely those bankside moorings will be taken up by any ex-Pillings marina dwellers, the C&RT will have to find new customers through their current scheme. Surely there's a greater imperative, to get some cash in fast? Or at least not lose any more than they already have.....

And again, what will they do in the long term if they blockade it? How long will the blockade last? I can't see that going down too well in the publicity stakes. You can imagine the headlines.

 

Well, whether their planned action to sever the marina from the national network plays well in the "publicity stakes" rather depends on whether the articles are factual or not. Everyone to whom I have spoken who has followed what has been happening is singularly unimpressed by claims that CRT are some kind of "boogie man" in all of this. In fact, many, whilst sympathetic to those innocent parties caught up in the dispute, have expressed a similar view to one or two who have posted here that if CRT wants any help then they would be willing volunteers. Such views do suggest that, whilst CRT may not always be regarded as the boater's best friend, anyone trying to argue that this is some kind of "David and Goliath" struggle is not going to enjoy unqualified support particularly when there is a strong possibility that those same individuals might be asked to put their hand in their pocket to cover a dishonoured debt.

Having witnessed many not-too-dissimilar company collapses in different industries, it is not uncommon for those in such a position to be sold, lock, stock and barrel, to an aquisitive company/group already in the industry, with an excellent reputation and experienced in running such a business successfully.

Indeed, if it wished, I see no reason why CRT could not buy the site, and then sublet it to an operator.

 

Indeed so. although whether CRT want to be in the marina business is a moot point. if this were to happen, no doubt there would be wailing from the usual quarters claiming that CRT's action was motivated only by a wish to snap up a desirable property at minimum cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.