Bucks Saint

If the Court rules the Admin appointment is valid, and it should continue, then they will accept it but will probably insist on being on the Creditors Committee (a representative group of Creditors that gets to meet with the Administrator and be updated on all major decisions). Otherwise they will press for WU IMHO. They do not issue WU Petitions as a threat or as a debt collection tool. They do so because they have decided that this is the right option. They dont get emotional about the type of business or who might be impacted. They have been to Court twice on this , raised some serious questions, not had any real answers, and each time seen the Court give PFC more time (and more time than HMRC asked them to be given too). I dont think its personal against the staff etc - they dont get emotional as I have said - but I suspect they may be seriously hacked off by how this business is being run and the decisions that have been taken. I also think HMRC are more "involved" on this one because there is no traditional bank debt here. If there was, like us with Barclays, they could usually rely on the Bank making sure that (1) the Administration was the right course of action, on a timely basis , and a valid appointment and (2) that the Administrator was someone sensible who they could work with. With no Bank involved, and no other Creditor checking these things, HMRC have to. Bottom line - if the current Admin is not valid, then they will be even more determined to put an end to the shannigans. IMHO

I have dealt with them many times. There are cases where arguments along the lines of : "If you support our plan (Administration) you will get 75% of your money back and the business will continue and jobs will be saved, BUT if you dont (Winding Up) you will only get 30% back at most, and the business will cease, and jobs will be lost, and we will stop generating more tax and PAYE receipts for you in future, etc etc" cut no ice whatsoever. Why? Because in those cases they usually involve a serial bad payer, who has broken many previous agreements to pay arrears, who has avoided all sensible courses of action, who has management that cannot be trusted / are incompetent and the business is doomed. So in these cases HMRC view putting them into Liquidation as the best way to stop the tax debt getting any worse - unlike a normal trade supplier, they cant just put them on stop! Sound anything like the blue few's favourite dead horse?

HMRC been in court twice already. They are busy making sure there is not a 4th time.

Result!

At the bar, before dinner? Some friend you are!

We did take 3000 to a midweek away at MKD, 7pm KO. In the 3rd biggest domestic cup competition

YES. Directors or shareholders can file for Administration. In fact, they can do this out of court, i.e. a Court order is not required, provided a number of circumstances exist. This was open to them only up to the time that HMRC filed their Winding Up Petition. From that point on, it was no longer possible. Only a Creditor could file an Application for Adminstration, with the Court. Why did they not do this? Who knows - perhaps they convinced themselves they could avoid insolvency all together. The fact that they went to the High Court, and came very very close to having a WU Order made remains impossible to understand. Blind ignorance maybe or just playing with fire. Yes the payment of Footy creditors first could well deter another IP. In fact all the negative publicity, plus the Court Action by HMRC, as well as the risk of not being paid, have clearly put off many IPs. But we have Andy! Dont get confused with the title Official Receiver. He is a DTI official, and will only come into play when and if the Winding Up Order is made. Then he gets appointed. But he will never be the Administrator

Oh if only Sheffield United were one of those. Played one, won one against the PL (well against West Ham at least)

Brilliant. The Taxman should stop all companies from making sales of anything and employing anyone, just in case they dont pay over the VAT and PAYE/ NIC that arises. Genius!

No. His position is no different if he had petitioned or not. He has the same priority of claim. Actually the best outcome for him was if PFC refinanced without going into insolvency but its way too late (as well as never going to happen) for that

Spot on

Ok, cheers, good point. We wait to see who the next make-believe creditor might be!

Given that his appointment has been challenged in the High Court, and he has not yet been able to prove anything, I do wonder if he is holding off taking any substantial actions on the basis that he might get sued for any such actions, if he does not win on 15 March, i.e. he will have taken actions as an Administrator and then shown to have had no such power. Maybe if he had a bullet proof indemnity he could carry on but who is going to provide that funding? ho hum....

I dont know if HMRC will be succeed with their desire to get a WU Order. But your summary above misses one key point: If HMRC win on Point 1, then it must have been shown that the debt against which Andy has been appointed is not valid (either because it was not new money, or because it is not even owed by PFC). If that happens, the Court CANNOT just appoint another Administrator. Even if the Court feels that Administration is the best course of action, it can only appoint someone if there is an Application by a PFC Creditor (that is valid). If this particular debt / claim is not valid, then an Administrator could only be appointed if another Creditor steps forward immediately, with a valid debt and valid application. I am personally amazed that Andy and Co have taken this appointment without being certain, in advance, that it is valid. And then to have been summoned to Court and faced serious questions and yet still not been able to demonstrate that it is valid is almost unheard of.

Absolutely fantastic tonight lads, amazing performance and everyone sent home with a huge smile! Never another moan from me after that show. Oh, but can I have my money back for Wycombe please?

The Official Receiver is a DTI official. His title as "Receiver" is a bit misleading as he is appointed in the first instance in two scenarios: (1) As Trustee of individuals made bankrupt; (2) As Liquidator of Companies which are Wound Up by the Court. The OR can continue to deal with PFC himself but as it is high profile and messy, with assets to deal with, it is highly likely that he will choose an independent firm to be appointed as Liquidator in his place, after the first few days.

Its not certain what the Court will do on the 15th. I am sure HMRC will press for a Winding Up order if the Admin is not valid. PFC will resist of course but they will be open to what the Court decides. Remember that the Court has already said that PFC are trading whilst insolvent and it may take a dim view that they have been in court just a few too many times since then, but still not resolved the position

Spot on.

It does not matter if Administration looks like the best course of action - if the debt claimed to be owed to the creditor which appointed the Administrator is not valid, or if the charge claimed as security by that creditor is not valid (as its not new money), then the Court cant just agree its the right thing to do, nor can they appoint a different individual as Administrator. The Administration is not valid. It would take a willing new creditor, with valid debt and valid security, before Administration could even be considered again. HMRC will be pressing for Winding Up on the 15th, IMHO, unless the current appointment is shown to be valid.

As the Appointor, you can choose whichever IP you like. Fees would be one issue to consider, along with working style, previous knowledge of the industry, ideas for how to trade / sell the business etc etc. But if the money is coming out of assets of the company (which is the case 95% of the time), then creditors have to agree the basis on which he is paid and how much (not just the Appointor). If creditors dont agree, then the Admin has to go to Court and show why his fee is reasonable If the fees are being paid separately, and not out of the assets, then creditors dont have any say over how much, as it does not affect them

Its wrong.

Yes, its wrong. Fees are usually paid out of assets and that is the case no matter who appoints the Admin. Its quite possible to have costs covered another way, particularly if there is a concern that assets may not be enough / may not be realised for a long time - this is usually something the Admin will insist on to protect himself.

cheers. sorry been busy on another Administration (I offered to do PFC for free......)

He was paid out of the assets - i.e. the funds he raised from selling SFC, and any other assets owned by SLH Plc. He would have had agreement of the amount with the creditors though before taking it, or if they said no, the court.

Unbelievable. This lawyer is talking cra*p. They either have, or have not, been validly appointed. No amount of time can change that. If its not valid then it needs to be ruled upon immediately - otherwise the Administrator can carry out acts that he has no power to!