Jump to content

Dispute at Pillings


andy the hammer

Featured Posts

Having just read over on NBW the most recent article by Allan Richards, I am reminded why tabloid newspapers are never read in our house. On the one hand he appears to loudly complain that it "is the boater that ends up paying. It always is!", and then promptly demands that all NAAs are scrapped. So all boaters will indeed pay more.

I am sure he's a nice enough bloke: not having done more than share a meeting room with him once, I don't know him, but please let's have some intellectual rigour, if he wants to be taken seriously.

 

The article claiming that a new NAA agreement is well in hand following RoyR's little chat with Tammy at CRT is still misleading visitors to the site. With the benefit of Mr Spencer's latest statement there would seem to be substantial reason to at least change the headline but no, "The Voice of the Waterways (Telling it like it is)" seems somewhat tardy in correcting its mistakes.

 

Credibility - zero.

Alledgedly Mr Herbert used to hold a position at Pillings Lock Marina, though I know not how accurate the Leicester Mercury was in 2012

 

But, if he had held that position, one would legitimately believe that he could access details of the figures involved / paid / offered to CRT

 

That of Managing Director if the article is accurate in describing him as such, which I very much doubt. There seems little reason to conclude that Mr Herbert's claim that his would post details of the QMP payments to CRT under the NAA was little more than "smoke and mirrors" although quite what he hoped this would achieve is anyone's guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It could be that the 'title' alone is good enough.

RR seems to be a 'high flyer' and is at the top of everything he does - without looking at his facebook page and from memory he was somehing like 'student of the year', chairman of the 'young solicitors' group etc etc.

 

What up & coming 20 year old wouldn't want "Company Director" on his CV ?

 

Whilst I have no doubt that he is all you claim, as the sole director of the new outfit owning the site, an outfit whose existence rather depends on concluding a new NAA, one would have expected the gentleman concerned to have taken the role of a spokesman for the new company rather than Mr Lillie junior, the ex-director of its financially-moribund predecessor. This is even before one considers that Mr Lillie junior's frequent public pronouncements can hardly be described as conciliatory toward CRT, the organisation on whose good offices RoyR's future position depends. Could it be that a young high-flying law student might be finding it somewhat difficult to convince Mr Lillie junior that silence is golden?

Edited by tupperware
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting hypothesis. What if, for medical reasons or because he's absent/unreachable, Mr Steadman knows nothing of the winter's events? Let's look at the evidence for his activity:

 

December's court case: dealt with by PL.

 

Formation of 750LLtd as a subsidiary of QMH: Maybe just dealt with by PL and/or RR; would it need Steadman's signature as majority shareholder of QMH for QMH to receive the shares in the new company?

 

The IP disclaiming QMP's freehold, which reverts to Steadman: Maybe the IP just sends off documents to the Land Registry and posts some notice to Mr Steadman, but doesn't need any reply, or if he does is still awaiting it?

 

PLT receiving the freehold according to PL. Phil Spencer says he wants to see documentary evidence of this.

 

Not a lot of evidence is it?

Trust me, you can be absolutely certain that Steadman is " in the loop"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust me, you can be absolutely certain that Steadman is " in the loop"

 

Hi John,

 

Was Steadman pretty interested in or hands-on with the marina, or was it just an investment to him? In retrospect, do you think he has some kind of long range plan for this property, other than the marina?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect the "injunction" is designed to appease the marina moorers as they are one of the revenue streams. The management doesn't want the moorers to leave and would like to give them hope that the matter can eventually be resolved without the blockade. Maybe some moorers will even pay their next mooring instalment in the belief a temporary solution is being worked on.

 

For my own part I think both parties are entrenched. The marina wants a new NAA (and I suspect at a reduced price) and CRT won't discuss a NAA until they are satisfied there are sufficient guarantees to ensure there will be no repetition. Both recognise the PLM moorers are clients and are placing their own "spin" in the situation to assure the moorer']s that they (both PLM & CRT) have their (the moorers) best interests at heart. Hence CRT's recent statement which included the demand that the moorers interests also be secured.

 

PL will continue to take the money until the bitter end. Then he will walk away claiming that he is also a victim of CRT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

. . . I am puzzled as to what capacity Mr Lillie imagines he might represent a company in liquidation . . .

 

- and it is hopeless anticipating that the liquidator would sanction any court action on the company’s behalf. While the authority to bring legal actions on behalf of the company vest in the liquidator, I have never known them to do so [although it surely must happen sometimes].

 

The ‘Official Receiver’ will not take such a course as a matter of firm policy, and even the biggest specialists shy away from exposing themselves to the costs, even where cases are ‘watertight’. This is presumably because the liquidator is personally liable to the costs of any action.

 

Furthermore, even if he was sufficiently confident and had litigation insurance in place, an application for an injunction is not going to bring in money per se, which is all that he is interested in. If he felt that keeping the marina open would best provide a continuing income stream capable of eventually recovering the debt, he would be far better off having a quiet word with CaRT.

 

I know that CaRT is more concerned about the ‘message’ than the cash, but the financially logical course would have been for CaRT to have agreed with the liquidator that the marina stayed open, and that ALL profit from the company went to them, until the sum owed was paid off. The moment the liquidator displaced the previous Director, all that was within his power to achieve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that CaRT is more concerned about the ‘message’ than the cash, but the financially logical course would have been for CaRT to have agreed with the liquidator that the marina stayed open, and that ALL profit from the company went to them, until the sum owed was paid off. The moment the liquidator displaced the previous Director, all that was within his power to achieve.

 

Interesting analysis Nigel and an obviouls suggestion, now you've said it!

 

So the fact that your suggestion which MUST have occurred to the IP but seems not to be happening, suggests either:

 

1) CRT refused the offer and are being 'dog in the manger' about it

or

2) The IP sees some reason not to follow this course of action.

 

We never established who was paying the IP did we?

 

I supposed, Mr Lillie junior resigning as director must have free up enough income to start making some payments to CRT, wouldn't it? Or to pay the IP costs.

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not so sure that the IP was given the chance MtB. It depends on the timing as everything went down – at what point did CaRT rush in and cancel the NAA?

 

Even so, the lack of that formal arrangement would not prevent an agreement being reached. I suspect the IP was out of his depth at first, with a scenario outside of his experience.

 

I honestly believe that ALL parties involved in this dispute have, once the court judgment was handed down, acted precipitously and by rote, without pausing for reflection on the best way forward – and I include the IP in that.

 

As for the IP being paid, I gather that sometimes they won’t be. Taking up these situations [unless they have no say in it] is perhaps at times a considered professional gamble.


The only party that will have given more thought to this than the others will be CaRT, and I don’t believe that their choices were the right ones.

 

They will have done a balancing act – weighing on the one hand whether is it better to recover the sums owed over a period of time, or on the other to ‘make a stand’ at the cost of foregoing the sums owed.

 

In my view, the responsible course would have been to act as any ordinary business would, and place the recovery of sums owed ahead of punitive warnings to other ‘clients’. Surely, in any event, a course of action that assured eventual payment would have been far more effective propaganda?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In my view, the responsible course would have been to act as any ordinary business would, and place the recovery of sums owed ahead of punitive warnings to other ‘clients’. Surely, in any event, a course of action that assured eventual payment would have been far more effective propaganda?

 

 

Isnt that what C&RT did ?

 

They 'pressured' QMP into paying for several years, when they continually defaulted they went to court to try and recover the sum owed, after further 'non-payments' C&RT were forced to take stronger action and threatened to cancel the NAA,

 

QMP's response was - ok we are not going to pay, so we'll just go into administration and 'yah-boo-sucks' to your money.

 

C&RT's response - "look we'll give you a last chance - pay by the 14th April and we'll keep it all 'as was'"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

- and it is hopeless anticipating that the liquidator would sanction any court action on the company’s behalf. While the authority to bring legal actions on behalf of the company vest in the liquidator, I have never known them to do so [although it surely must happen sometimes].

 

The ‘Official Receiver’ will not take such a course as a matter of firm policy, and even the biggest specialists shy away from exposing themselves to the costs, even where cases are ‘watertight’. This is presumably because the liquidator is personally liable to the costs of any action.

 

Furthermore, even if he was sufficiently confident and had litigation insurance in place, an application for an injunction is not going to bring in money per se, which is all that he is interested in. If he felt that keeping the marina open would best provide a continuing income stream capable of eventually recovering the debt, he would be far better off having a quiet word with CaRT.

 

I know that CaRT is more concerned about the ‘message’ than the cash, but the financially logical course would have been for CaRT to have agreed with the liquidator that the marina stayed open, and that ALL profit from the company went to them, until the sum owed was paid off. The moment the liquidator displaced the previous Director, all that was within his power to achieve.

 

Whilst both of us seem in full agreement regarding the latest bright idea from Mr Lillie junior regarding the possibility of injunctions, I do not understand your point regarding the IP being able to try and keep the marina open by, perhaps, having a quiet word with CRT to maintain network access on the basis that any profit would be paid to the latter to clear the debt. My point is that QMP seems to have had a very limited income stream, derived largely from the long-term leases. Whatever arrangements QMP may have had with PLM did not, it would seem, deliver much in the way of other income given that QMP was able to become indebted to PLM to the tune of some £1.6 million. Furthermore, whether the secured creditor, Mr Steadman, would have permitted the IP to retain ownership of any income derived from the site given that ownership of that site reverted to him is a moot point.

 

Interesting analysis Nigel and an obviouls suggestion, now you've said it!

 

So the fact that your suggestion which MUST have occurred to the IP but seems not to be happening, suggests either:

 

1) CRT refused the offer and are being 'dog in the manger' about it

or

2) The IP sees some reason not to follow this course of action.

 

We never established who was paying the IP did we?

 

I supposed, Mr Lillie junior resigning as director must have free up enough income to start making some payments to CRT, wouldn't it? Or to pay the IP costs.

 

MtB

 

I think it most improbable that a significant portion of Mr Lillie junior's income, salary and/or dividends, could have derived from QMP. It is far more likely that the bulk of his remuneration has been, and continues to be paid by PLM. If this is indeed the case then his resignation as a director of QMP would make little material difference to any sums the IP had available for disposal.

I’m not so sure that the IP was given the chance MtB. It depends on the timing as everything went down – at what point did CaRT rush in and cancel the NAA?

 

Even so, the lack of that formal arrangement would not prevent an agreement being reached. I suspect the IP was out of his depth at first, with a scenario outside of his experience.

 

I honestly believe that ALL parties involved in this dispute have, once the court judgment was handed down, acted precipitously and by rote, without pausing for reflection on the best way forward – and I include the IP in that.

 

As for the IP being paid, I gather that sometimes they won’t be. Taking up these situations [unless they have no say in it] is perhaps at times a considered professional gamble.

The only party that will have given more thought to this than the others will be CaRT, and I don’t believe that their choices were the right ones.

 

They will have done a balancing act – weighing on the one hand whether is it better to recover the sums owed over a period of time, or on the other to ‘make a stand’ at the cost of foregoing the sums owed.

 

In my view, the responsible course would have been to act as any ordinary business would, and place the recovery of sums owed ahead of punitive warnings to other ‘clients’. Surely, in any event, a course of action that assured eventual payment would have been far more effective propaganda?

 

 

NigelMoore - I understood that the arrangement under which QMP entered liquidation was a CVL - in such a situation are the directors not responsible for paying the IP?

Is anyone aware as to whether the IP is an accountant or a solicitor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Whilst both of us seem in full agreement regarding the latest bright idea from Mr Lillie junior regarding the possibility of injunctions, I do not understand your point regarding the IP being able to try and keep the marina open by, perhaps, having a quiet word with CRT to maintain network access on the basis that any profit would be paid to the latter to clear the debt. My point is that QMP seems to have had a very limited income stream, derived largely from the long-term leases. Whatever arrangements QMP may have had with PLM did not, it would seem, deliver much in the way of other income given that QMP was able to become indebted to PLM to the tune of some £1.6 million. Furthermore, whether the secured creditor, Mr Steadman, would have permitted the IP to retain ownership of any income derived from the site given that ownership of that site reverted to him is a moot point.

 

But reversion of the freehold was one of those [in my opinion] too hasty decisions, resulting in the present situation.

 

It may be that my point takes too simplistic a view. If the existing arrangements enabled the company now in liquidation to have paid its way, then allowing it to continue 'trading' had to have been the way forward. If the previous non-payment was a matter of choice by a Director who placed priorities elsewhere when distributing whatever income there was, then a different hand at the helm could have made different choices based on different priorities.

 

If the income stream truly was fixed at a point where the payment never had been possible, then there was never any need for anyone to jump up and down about moral imperatives – the payment could not be made rather than would not be paid.

 

If there had never been any possibility that payments could be made from the possible income stream, then the issue is one of straightforward fraud on Pillings part and mind-blowing incompetence on those in BW/CaRT entrusted with exercising due diligence.

NigelMoore - I understood that the arrangement under which QMP entered liquidation was a CVL - in such a situation are the directors not responsible for paying the IP?

 

In my experience of many years ago, if as a company you chose to employ an IP to protect your interests as best as could be, then even the most minor wanted £3,000 up front before even looking at the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Whilst I have no doubt that he is all you claim, as the sole director of the new outfit owning the site, an outfit whose existence rather depends on concluding a new NAA, one would have expected the gentleman concerned to have taken the role of a spokesman for the new company rather than Mr Lillie junior, the ex-director of its financially-moribund predecessor. This is even before one considers that Mr Lillie junior's frequent public pronouncements can hardly be described as conciliatory toward CRT, the organisation on whose good offices RoyR's future position depends. Could it be that a young high-flying law student might be finding it somewhat difficult to convince Mr Lillie junior that silence is golden

 

Had a quick look at RoyR's LinkedIn public profile and I'm surprised at his current reticence, as he seems overwhelmingly immodest on his webpage.

 

He blows his own trumpet about his "exceptionally high standards", "working incredibly well in a team" and how he is a "good leader and team player", how he "quickly progressed to a management position, often being left in charge of the Marina, Restaurant, and the Penthouse Suite" after starting as a junior.

 

His interest in advocacy lies with the prosecution side "shadowing the barristers and solicitors who prosecute nurses at misconduct and impairment hearings" and companies being sued for damages.

 

His linkedin profile is not a list of his work experience/interests etc it is simply a forum for grandstanding.

But one phrase stood out and struck me as so, so relevant "I am attentive and follow instructions whilst always giving 100%". Seems like PL/Steadman have found the ideal candidate after all. A mini-me for PL in every way.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Whilst both of us seem in full agreement regarding the latest bright idea from Mr Lillie junior regarding the possibility of injunctions, I do not understand your point regarding the IP being able to try and keep the marina open by, perhaps, having a quiet word with CRT to maintain network access on the basis that any profit would be paid to the latter to clear the debt. My point is that QMP seems to have had a very limited income stream, derived largely from the long-term leases. Whatever arrangements QMP may have had with PLM did not, it would seem, deliver much in the way of other income given that QMP was able to become indebted to PLM to the tune of some £1.6 million. Furthermore, whether the secured creditor, Mr Steadman, would have permitted the IP to retain ownership of any income derived from the site given that ownership of that site reverted to him is a moot point.

 

I think it most improbable that a significant portion of Mr Lillie junior's income, salary and/or dividends, could have derived from QMP. It is far more likely that the bulk of his remuneration has been, and continues to be paid by PLM. If this is indeed the case then his resignation as a director of QMP would make little material difference to any sums the IP had available for disposal.

 

NigelMoore - I understood that the arrangement under which QMP entered liquidation was a CVL - in such a situation are the directors not responsible for paying the IP?

Is anyone aware as to whether the IP is an accountant or a solicitor?

I suspect you are correct. If the directors are responsible for paying the IP and they are in a hurry to get a new NAA, you would think they would be promptly paying the IP for him to quickly wind up QMP. If he isn't being paid by the directors then he is likely to want to take his time! That isn't going to help PLM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But reversion of the freehold was one of those [in my opinion] too hasty decisions, resulting in the present situation.

 

It may be that my point takes too simplistic a view. If the existing arrangements enabled the company now in liquidation to have paid its way, then allowing it to continue 'trading' had to have been the way forward. If the previous non-payment was a matter of choice by a Director who placed priorities elsewhere when distributing whatever income there was, then a different hand at the helm could have made different choices based on different priorities.

 

If the income stream truly was fixed at a point where the payment never had been possible, then there was never any need for anyone to jump up and down about moral imperatives – the payment could not be made rather than would not be paid.

 

If there had never been any possibility that payments could be made from the possible income stream, then the issue is one of straightforward fraud on Pillings part and mind-blowing incompetence on those in BW/CaRT entrusted with exercising due diligence.

 

I trust that the IP is taking his/her duty seriously in considering whether unfair preference in terms of income disposal has taken place prior to the liquidation. If there has been any such behaviour on the part of QMP then I'm a little unclear how this reflects on BW/CRT other than in the length of time they took to bring the matter to a head.

 

I have previously asked whether anyone is aware of the IP's profession - accountancy or legal - do you know?

 

Had a quick look at RoyR's LinkedIn public profile and I'm surprised at his current reticence, as he seems overwhelmingly immodest on his webpage.

 

He blows his own trumpet about his "exceptionally high standards", "working incredibly well in a team" and how he is a "good leader and team player", how he "quickly progressed to a management position, often being left in charge of the Marina, Restaurant, and the Penthouse Suite" after starting as a junior.

 

His interest in advocacy lies with the prosecution side "shadowing the barristers and solicitors who prosecute nurses at misconduct and impairment hearings" and companies being sued for damages.

 

His linkedin profile is not a list of his work experience/interests etc it is simply a forum for grandstanding.

But one phrase stood out and struck me as so, so relevant "I am attentive and follow instructions whilst always giving 100%". Seems like PL/Steadman have found the ideal candidate after all. A mini-me for PL in every way.

 

 

 

 

Well, at the risk of ruffling some feathers, my view is that industry seems rather full of those who, lacking the wit to understand the difference between management and leadership, imagine that organising things is the same as earning the respect of those looking to them for direction. It is interesting that the psychological profiles of managers and (military) leaders are markedly different.

 

I would have expected someone claiming such strong leadership and advocacy abilities to have been visible as the major spokesperson in respect of the new company given that he is its sole director. Shades of General Melchett perhaps?

Edited by tupperware
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect you are correct. If the directors are responsible for paying the IP and they are in a hurry to get a new NAA, you would think they would be promptly paying the IP for him to quickly wind up QMP. If he isn't being paid by the directors then he is likely to want to take his time! That isn't going to help PLM.

 

Well, of course the (ex)director who is responsible for paying the IP is not the same individual as the director of the new company which has acquired title to the site. In addition, whilst a cursory liquidation might be of benefit to a few, the IP does have clearly defined duties and responsibilities to the creditors. These include, of course, the right of an IP to seek reimbursement of any payments in respect of other debts over quite a long period prior to the liquidation where such payments show unfair preference. The IP has the right to seek reimbursement from anyone who has held the position of director or has been involved in activities as a shadow director. Any IP who fails to consider such possibilities can, I understand, be subject to a complaint to his/her professional body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But reversion of the freehold was one of those [in my opinion] too hasty decisions, resulting in the present situation.

 

It may be that my point takes too simplistic a view. If the existing arrangements enabled the company now in liquidation to have paid its way, then allowing it to continue 'trading' had to have been the way forward. If the previous non-payment was a matter of choice by a Director who placed priorities elsewhere when distributing whatever income there was, then a different hand at the helm could have made different choices based on different priorities.

 

If the income stream truly was fixed at a point where the payment never had been possible, then there was never any need for anyone to jump up and down about moral imperatives – the payment could not be made rather than would not be paid.

 

If there had never been any possibility that payments could be made from the possible income stream, then the issue is one of straightforward fraud on Pillings part and mind-blowing incompetence on those in BW/CaRT entrusted with exercising due diligence.

 

In my experience of many years ago, if as a company you chose to employ an IP to protect your interests as best as could be, then even the most minor wanted £3,000 up front before even looking at the situation.

 

I understand that in the case of the current liquidation, a CVL, there is absolutely no choice as to whether the an IP is engaged or not. His/her costs will, of course, be dependent on the work involved and one or two remarks in Mr Spencer's statements suggest that CRT are, not surprisingly, taking quite a detailed interest in how the IP is discharging his/her duties.

 

Some pages back I raised the question of HMRC's likely view of any VAT relief claimed by QMP in respect of outgoings which were never paid. HMRC do not appear to be listed, according to the Creditor Statement, as a creditor of QMP which did surprise me a little unless HMRC write-off any reliefs claimed for VAT purposes after a company enters liquidation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I have previously asked whether anyone is aware of the IP's profession - accountancy or legal - do you know?

 

No-one seems to be answering this so I'll have a go.

 

I think every IP is a Chartered Accountant, not necessarily with a law qualification but certainly with a full knowledge of company law. My limited company was a creditor of an insolvent company in 2012, and I later asked my accountant, who has long experience with small to medium companies in a wide range of businesses and is now winding down to retirement by being very choosy about taking on new clients, whether he'd considered becoming an IP, given that their hourly fees are much higher than for normal accountancy work. His answer was that yes it's well paid and he could do it, but he wouldn't enjoy it because of the stress of dealing with the owners and creditors of failed businesses.

 

I think you're correct in thinking that the IP had no possibility of trading out of trouble with QMP, because he was obliged to give priority to Mr Steadman's charge over the freehold, and because the triumvirate was set up with PLM paying very little for its lease.

The latter must be so because otherwise QMP would not still owe PLM so much money.

We've only been able to base our opinions on the limited information QMP and PLM are obliged to file, plus what we know from boaters, John Lillie and a few other sources, but it looks to me as if PL never really intended that QMP would pay its NAA fees, and he and Steadman organised the cash flow with that in mind. All their actions and PL's announcements suggest they thought, and are still deluded enough to think, that CRT will roll over and let them repeat this scheme.

 

Wake up and smell the coffee, Mr Steadman, there must be some in the bistro if you've paid the catering suppliers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C&RT took moorers licence renewal money even though they knew they were going to announce a blockade the marina ?

Why they wouldn't take licence renewal money from the moorers despite knowing of the future intention to blockade the marina. A licence would be required in the normal way right up to the time that marina is severed from the canal. For those who then choose to leave, the licence requirement remains extant and to those who choose to stay, a refund of the unused portion of the licence fee is given.

 

Is there a currently available variable licence based on and sold for precisely the number of days for which it is required? (From renewal day to entrance closure day say). Did or could the moorers reasonably expect the licence fee to be waived for the period prior to access to the marina being closed off?

 

 

 

[snip]

 

I think it most improbable that a significant portion of Mr Lillie junior's income, salary and/or dividends, could have derived from QMP. It is far more likely that the bulk of his remuneration has been, and continues to be paid by PLM. If this is indeed the case then his resignation as a director of QMP would make little material difference to any sums the IP had available for disposal.

If PLM was paying salarie/s and the associated on-costs and benefits such as employer NI, health insurance,pension contributions etc. on behalf of QMP then presumably there would be inter-company cross charges made giving rise over time to QMP having a significant liability (on paper) to PLM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Isnt that what C&RT did ?

 

They 'pressured' QMP into paying for several years, when they continually defaulted they went to court to try and recover the sum owed, after further 'non-payments' C&RT were forced to take stronger action and threatened to cancel the NAA,

 

QMP's response was - ok we are not going to pay, so we'll just go into administration and 'yah-boo-sucks' to your money.

 

C&RT's response - "look we'll give you a last chance - pay by the 14th April and we'll keep it all 'as was'"

 

I don’t think it WAS what they did – bearing in mind that I am talking only of actions post-judgment.

 

Having obtained their judgment, there was only the question of which party would go the liquidation route first. I think the voluntary liquidation choice by the debtor company was probably the best for CaRT, and that they failed to capitalise on the situation.

 

As others have pointed out, the liquidator is in control once appointed, and if everyone’s [including his own] best interests are served by attempting to trade out of the debt, then that he what he should do. The previous Director is in no position to say “yah-boo-sucks” once control has been taken from him, voluntarily or otherwise.

 

The choice for CaRT, in other words, once the company went into liquidation, was whether to provide the most auspicious environment for the liquidator to achieve eventual payment, or whether to make that next to impossible for the sake of the grand gesture.

 

As a threat to scare the money out of the company, cancellation of the NAA and accompanying deadline for blockage fell flat on its face; CaRT have in a sense backed themselves into a corner where they stand to lose face if they don’t carry out the threat, and that action will be, if carried out, damaging to any possibility of recovering the sum owed.

 

I suspect that they resigned themselves to the loss far too quickly. The best outcome for them at this stage – gaining an income stream with a new NAA – is never going to mitigate that loss.

 

On the other hand, if they belatedly recognised that they had been hornswoggled from the outset, and there had never been any intent/possibility of payment, then perhaps the grand gesture was all they were left with.

 

I trust that the IP is taking his/her duty seriously in considering whether unfair preference in terms of income disposal has taken place prior to the liquidation. If there has been any such behaviour on the part of QMP then I'm a little unclear how this reflects on BW/CRT other than in the length of time they took to bring the matter to a head.

 

I have previously asked whether anyone is aware of the IP's profession - accountancy or legal - do you know?

 

Agreed; what I was saying was that it would reflect on BW/CaRT IF the set-up had made it impossible for the NAA to be paid for. If it was not impossible, then trading out of the debt should have been possible.

 

I personally haven’t the faintest idea of the IP’s profession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Writing off the still mysterious £1.6M debt is at the heart of this I think. Compared to that, the money owed to CRT is chicken feed. I can't figure it out, but could it be that CRT have been gratefully used as an excuse to wind up QMP and write this debt off?


If so and it is apparently the case that the triumverate were sure they would get another access agreement without too much fuss, Crt are being used as the whipping boy in an atempt to distract everyone from the main plan which is purely a writing off/tax dodging scheme somewhere in amongst all this. If it had/does work, replacing one company that did nothing at all other than gather paper debts with another that also does the same is quite clever. No loss of income, no problems for the marina in carrying on trading etc etc.


Somehow, someone is £1.6M tax free better off here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Also, and of course I don't know your beliefs, church officials tend to dislike anyone getting married in a church unless at least one of the couple is a regular churchgoer. They do it because the church needs the money.

 

No, that's not at all the case.

 

The fees for church weddings are pitifully small, especially in comparison with the average wedding budget: the standard fee is around £400, which is a fraction of the average £25,000 cost of a wedding. It isn't a significant revenue raiser by any means. The payments for the organist, bellringers, choir etc. are smaller still - you try getting a plumber out on a Saturday afternoon for the fees paid to an organist, and see how far it gets you.

 

Providing church wedding services for people who have no intention of believing in "the God bit" is something the Church of England does because it's the established church. Personally (as an organist) I'm not entirely convinced that having an established church is a good thing, but that's a whole other debate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I understand that in the case of the current liquidation, a CVL, there is absolutely no choice as to whether the an IP is engaged or not.

 

Of course an IP must be engaged in the liquidation – the choice of whether to go into liquidation voluntarily in the first place, is the choice the company director makes.

 

Making that choice only makes sense to me, if the company was going to be better off than in a situation where the company was inevitably going to be compulsorily wound up.

 

In the voluntary situation the company pays up front whatever is agreed, for what might be called the 'retainer', whereas in compulsory winding up the creditor can choose to pay for an IP instead of leaving things to the Official Receiver.

 

If it looks at first glance that there will be no further monies extractable, the IP might well just file the case away for years without spending any more time on it. I don't know whether there are any time constraints involved, but I know of cases where the company is still "in liquidation" nearly 6 years after appointment of Price Waterhouse Coopers at no doubt vast expense.

 

PWC wrote just two exploratory letters in all that time in one instance still ongoing, and firmly refused to be drawn into litigation designed to recover sums owed to the company. The file probably gathers dust in a drawer somewhere.

 

I know of cases left with the Official Receiver also, where the matter dragged on for years with nothing done at all, before final dissolution.

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.