Pompey Takeover Saga

[EastleighSoulBoy]

yes it did

 

?

[View From The Top]

yes it did

 

Their entire career of meetings has been in the top flight.

Edited 20 July, 2010 by View From The Top

[Saint_John]

Some reading for the legal ones of Comical Andy's previous cases

 

1/ Tradition (UK) Ltd v Ahmed & Ors [2008] EWHC 2946 (Ch)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2008/2946.html

Quote from Judge

"....I find that Mr Andronikou did fail to meet the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent insolvency practitioner in preparing his Nominee's Report dated 8 March 2007 and in his conduct during these proceedings

 

2/ Griffin v UHY Hacker Young & Partners (A Firm) [2010] EWHC 146 (Ch)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/146.html

 

(from http://www.insolvencynews.com/article/show/Portsmouth-administrator-criticised )

".. involves an allegation that Andronikou failed to advise his client that the winding up of his drinks company would prohibit him from becoming a director or being involved in the management of a future business. The judge ruled in the case: “It would have been the easiest thing in the world for Mr Andronikou to advise Mr Griffin to legitimise what he was doing. It is specifically alleged that he was negligent in failing to do so. Mr Griffin says he would have acted upon such advice.”

 

3/AQUA

(From http://www.insolvencynews.com/article/show/Portsmouth-administrator-criticised )

Andronikou is also embroiled in an HMRC investigation into the volutary liquidation of Aqua, a London-based commercial laundry company that serviced various top hotels. HMRC disputed a £500,000 debt which the sole director claimed his insolvent company owed him. Last May Andronikou agreed to be replaced as the liquidator ahead of a High Court hearing.

Stephen Hunt, the new liquidator from Griffins chosen by HMRC, has confirmed that he is “investigating the director and Andronikou’s conduct in the run-up to the insolvency

.

[bridge too far]

^^

 

I've often thought that there's more to HMRCs pursuit of PFC. I reckon they're out to get AA as well, in view of his past 'demeanours'.

[tony13579]

BBC south reported that AA was sucessfull in obtaining an early hearing , the court case with HMRC would be heard before the start of the season.

Sounds good.... but i think thier source was AA so it might just be more BS.

[Gemmel]

Local TV are all reporting that they have won their appeal to have the case heard early. Intrestingly it was Lampitt that represented the club.....amazing how things happen when you use a professional.

From a personal view, i hope it is heard early. My prediction (Long shot I know) a deal will be made, aa will stand down (No criminal charges) another administrator put in place and a better CVA put together. Chanarai will stay on or one of his mates will buy it.

[hypochondriac]

sure you can read? ;o)

 

I said I couldn't see it, not that it wasn't there.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Does the monkey chicken petting zoo look feasible?

 

More feasible than their C.V.A. proposals.

[Chez]

^^

 

I've often thought that there's more to HMRCs pursuit of PFC. I reckon they're out to get AA as well, in view of his past 'demeanours'.

nah,they just want their money.

[Eastcowzer]

Perhaps PL put him in there to make sure he could handle any bad news that might emerge. Not sure what would have happened if Poop refused. Would be interesting to know how much he is earning and who is paying him. Speculation of course.

 

How many times does it have to be explained that the said (Jed C).Lampitt, erstwhile CEO of that esteemed establishment PCFC, has , as far as I am aware, never been employed by the 'premier' League

and prior to his appointment at Farton Krap. he was second in command at the Football Association. and has therefore not worked for the Football League either. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[S-Clarke]

FOOTBALL:

 

 

Portsmouth end contract talks with England goalkeeper David James

_

[EastleighSoulBoy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8840717.stm

[OldNick]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8840717.stm

 

so are the FL going to give them special dispensation to get a keeper in.What have the PFA said in all this.Pompey apparently allowing players to go and putting them on the dole so they can get better in.(I do realise that James was out of contract, but generally speaking about the offloading of players)

[pedg]

so are the FL going to give them special dispensation to get a keeper in.What have the PFA said in all this.Pompey apparently allowing players to go and putting them on the dole so they can get better in.(I do realise that James was out of contract, but generally speaking about the offloading of players)

 

If I was the FL I would give the dispensation to get in a new keeper.. as long as it was one of the players they recently released.

[saintjay77]

so are the FL going to give them special dispensation to get a keeper in.What have the PFA said in all this.Pompey apparently allowing players to go and putting them on the dole so they can get better in.(I do realise that James was out of contract, but generally speaking about the offloading of players)

 

Not sure who they have been using in goal on there states tour but I guess it might have been ashdown who they released at the end of the season and now have back in on trial. Wouldnt be suprised if the FL let them get him back in and possibley A N Other keeper.

 

Still waiting to hear the thoughts of the FL on Poopy's blatent side step of the embargo though. I very much doubt they will be happy about it but what is there that they can do about it? Do Poopy have to get the go ahead from them to get anyone in even if they are under the 20 mark or can they just go ahead and do it? No comformation of the Sonko deal yet so I presume they need the nod from the FL.

 

Didnt someone post on here an email they sent to the FL regarding all this? Was there ever a response?

[Gingeletiss]

so are the FL going to give them special dispensation to get a keeper in.What have the PFA said in all this.Pompey apparently allowing players to go and putting them on the dole so they can get better in.(I do realise that James was out of contract, but generally speaking about the offloading of players)

 

There has been a smell around PCFC for a few years now, with various factions seemingly bending their rules to accommodate the Blue phew. So to see them attempting to flaunt the FL rules, and get away with it, would not be a new experience to them. As to the rest of the footballing public, it is a mystery, perhaps Fred Dinnage has applied a bit of 'HOW' to things!

[View From The Top]

Ashdown travelled with the squad IIRC.

[Doctoroncall]

Ashdown travelled with the squad IIRC.

 

They have O'Brien the England U-19s keeper and another as trialist. Ashdown is recovering from an injury and will not be avialable until the last match on the US tour.

[rallyboy]

are they still pretending it's a tour?

It's a holiday, a badly planned and ill-timed one, but it's a paid holiday for all involved.

They will learn nothing from being there unless it's part of the whole image rights business, shifting Hayden Mullins shirts stateside.

Soon you won't be able to go anywhere in the US without seeing a Nugent shirt....

 

Cotterill's time would be much better spent in the UK finding out what Chanrai's little puppet is up to behind his back.

 

What's that Sooty? You're confident that the cva will be approved, you'll overturn the whole UK VAT system, the taxman will have to pay compensation and you can build a title-challenging squad for a new owner?

 

I think AA can stick those ideas where Mr Corbett puts his hand.

[Matthew Le God]

Five days ago the Sonko loan deal was announced, yet still not confirmed as going through. This may suggest the Football League aren't happy with it and the embargo remains in place, despite deliberately lowering the playing squad below 20 players.

 

I don't think it is a work permit problem as he was brought up in France and probably has a French passport, plus has lived in Britain for 8 years.

[Saint_clark]

so are the FL going to give them special dispensation to get a keeper in.What have the PFA said in all this.Pompey apparently allowing players to go and putting them on the dole so they can get better in.(I do realise that James was out of contract, but generally speaking about the offloading of players)

 

Scraping the barrel for things to slate them with aren't we? Clubs release players and get better in all the time.

[Matthew Le God]

Clubs release players and get better in all the time.

 

Not whilst under a transfer embargo from the Football League they don't.

[OldNick]

Scraping the barrel for things to slate them with aren't we? Clubs release players and get better in all the time.

clubs that are solent and trading normally yes, but in Pompeys case they seem to be offloading players with the sole intention of getting their squad below 20 so they can then thwart the FL rules. In doing so they are making players redundant who may not normally be so, due to this stunt

[Gingeletiss]

Not whilst under a transfer embargo from the Football League they don't.

 

...and not whilst trying to cheat the rules of said embargo, by getting rid of poor players, then claiming you wont have enought men to compete in the league, so now need special dispensation to sign some better ones.

[suewhistle]

But surely better players would be more expensive? And if they're getting rid of these players as well as the expensive good ones, why did they get them in the first place.

 

Yes, I know I shouldn't be looking for common-sense, logic... or legality.

Edited 21 July, 2010 by suewhistle
grammor doh

[Chez]

...and not whilst trying to cheat the rules of said embargo, by getting rid of poor players, then claiming you wont have enought men to compete in the league, so now need special dispensation to sign some better ones.

 

will they get it though?

[Doctoroncall]

Scraping the barrel for things to slate them with aren't we? Clubs release players and get better in all the time.

 

Not whilst under a transfer embargo from the Football League they don't.

 

It's not exactly what you'd call saving up for a CVA! Paying off contracted players at a rate of up to £3k a week (£150k a year) in exchange for a more competent player adding more on to the wage bill.

 

Maybe they could be excused if they have raised more than £15m required to service the CVA but are currently £11.4m short.

 

But no, all AA can bleat about is a level playing field and being competitive and we've all heard that before!

[Chez]

Five days ago the Sonko loan deal was announced, yet still not confirmed as going through. This may suggest the Football League aren't happy with it and the embargo remains in place, despite deliberately lowering the playing squad below 20 players.

 

I don't think it is a work permit problem as he was brought up in France and probably has a French passport, plus has lived in Britain for 8 years.

agree. Its all very annoucing a new signing to the press, perhaps to give Cotterill confidence that something is happening back home while he is away, but until the FL allows it he's a Reading player.

[Torres]

agree. Its all very annoucing a new signing to the press, perhaps to give Cotterill confidence that something is happening back home while he is away, but until the FL allows it he's a Reading player.

 

A Stoke player.

[Channon's Sideburns]

RESPONSE FROM FOOTBALL LEAGUE

 

 

Thank you for your email.

 

 

 

Due to the current position of Portsmouth FC, The League is currently monitoring many aspects of the club due to its position of being in administration, one of which is their playing squad. As you can appreciate in the current situation we are therefore unable to also comment or speculate on any resolution at this moment, or on any specific player or ownership queries.

 

No decision will be taken relating to any Football League action until the administration exit process in place at the Club becomes clearer.

 

 

 

Kind Regards

 

 

 

Amanda

 

 

 

Amanda Craig

 

Customer Services Administrator

 

The Football League Limited

Email - enquiries@football-league.co.uk

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk

[suewhistle]

No decision will be taken relating to any Football League action until the administration exit process in place at the Club becomes clearer.

 

and at the moment it's all as clear as mud...

[Chez]

in other words until the appeal has been heard in court they're signing no one. Are they allowed to start the season with less than 20 players?

[Draino76]

in other words until the appeal has been heard in court they're signing no one. Are they allowed to start the season with less than 20 players?

 

Ya. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!

[saintjay77]

Cheers CS,

 

I knew someone had emails the FL. Nice to see they are keeping tabs on the situation and not waiting for something to sneek up on them. All aa's blustering means nothing until the FL make a decission. Thats not going to happen it seems until they know 1, when the appeal court hearing will be heard and 2, the results of that hearing if its in the next few weeks. If it doesnt happen till October I guess they will make a decission now but it may be even more limiting than the blue few are hoping for.

[hutch]

It's not exactly what you'd call saving up for a CVA! Paying off contracted players at a rate of up to £3k a week (£150k a year) in exchange for a more competent player adding more on to the wage bill.

 

Maybe they could be excused if they have raised more than £15m required to service the CVA but are currently £11.4m short.

 

But no, all AA can bleat about is a level playing field and being competitive and we've all heard that before!

Have I missed something? AFAIK they've only brought in around £400k so far.

[Gingeletiss]

Have I missed something? AFAIK they've only brought in around £400k so far.

 

Is that concerned with a 'K'

 

Oops know...red faced thingy!

[stevegrant]

Have I missed something? AFAIK they've only brought in around £400k so far.

Belhadj gone for £3m-ish, I think.

[hutch]

Belhadj gone for £3m-ish, I think.

I haven't seen that confirmed. Clubs say deal agreed at £3.75m, and last Monday (10 days ago) Lampitt I think it was, was quoted as saying they were just waiting for confirmation that he had passed the medical. It's been all quiet since then. Last word from the player himself was that he has no intention of going to Qatar. Who can blame him?

[saintjay77]

Belhadj gone for £3m-ish, I think.

 

Has he gone yet or has that one stalled also?

 

Ive seen reports of where players seem to be off too but not seen any of them get completed yet.

[The Godfather]

Diop has gone aswell but fee undisclosed.

[Trader]

Belhadj has definitely gone

 

http://www.al-saddclub.com/output/page5524.asp

 

Al Sadd OS

[hutch]

I thought I would have a look and see if our optimism over HMRC's chances of winning the appeal are just wishful thinking. But they're really not. HMRC have played a blinder, and have shafted Andy royally, and it looks to me as if it was deliberate.

 

At the creditor's meeting on 6th May Andy was authorised to produce a CVA proposal and put it to the creditors for a vote.

 

Chapter 3 of the Insolvency Rules (1986) states:

 

1.11.— Summoning of meetings under s. 3

(1) The responsible insolvency practitioner shall fix a venue for the creditors' meeting and the company meeting, and give at least 14 days' notice of the meetings—

(a) in the case of the creditors' meeting, to all the creditors specified in the company's statement of affairs, and to any other creditors of whose address the insolvency practitioner is otherwise aware; and

(b) in the case of the company meeting, to all persons who are, to the best of his belief, members of the company.

 

(2) Each notice sent out under this Rule shall state the effect of Rule 1.19(1), (3) and (4) (requisite majorities (creditors)); and with it there shall be sent—

(a) a copy of the responsible insolvency practitioner's proposal, and

(b) a copy of the statement of affairs or, if he thinks fit, a summary of it (the summary to include a list of creditors and the amounts of their debts).

 

Andy duly did his duty and sent out the notice on 28th May, with the required copy of his proposal with the statement of affairs and list of creditors with the amount of their debts attached, scheduling the meeting for 17th June. The important page of his proposal is page 52. Note the figure for VAT,PAYE & NIC, and also that he has NOT included the football creditors. He did include Agents, which I think are football creditors, but we can forgive him for that little slip up.

 

So far so good, and all in line with the rules. Remember, at that time, Andy was confident the HMRC would vote in favour, because he agreed to their demand to liquidate the Company after 9 months and then conduct a forensic inquisition. In his published proposal, HMRC have 42% of the unsecured creditor's voting rights.

 

Then, unfortunately for Andy, and after his proposal was published and in the public domain, HMRC had a change of heart. Now they're going to vote against. Oh shyte. Very angry phone calls between Portsmouth and Hong Kong ensue. What to do?

 

Plan A - reduce HMRC's debt to 24m. Good plan, but still gives them 29%. Oh shyte shyte. So why not include the "secured" unsecured football creditors as well? They'll all vote in favour anyway because they get 100%. Job done. Now HMRC only have 22%. Phew.

 

But did he send out a revised notice with the amended proposal to the creditors? It looks as though he forgot.

 

So HMRC turn up on the 17th expecting to vote 42%, and find that they're only voting 22%. I don't think they were chuffed.

 

The right to appeal is in the Insolvency Act (1986):

 

6.— Challenge of decisions.

(1) Subject to this section, an application to the court may be made, by any of the persons specified below, on one or both of the following grounds, namely—

(a) that a voluntary arrangement which has effect under section 4A unfairly prejudices the interests of a creditor, member or contributory of the company;

(b) that there has been some material irregularity at or in relation to either of the meetings.

 

and that's what HMRC are doing. But they are also challenging him under the rules, which state:

 

1.17A.— Procedure for admission of creditors' claims for voting purposes

(1) Subject as follows, at any creditors' meeting the chairman shall ascertain the entitlement of persons wishing to vote and shall admit or reject their claims accordingly.

(2) The chairman may admit or reject a claim in whole or in part.

(3) The chairman's decision on any matter under this Rule or under paragraph (3) of Rule 1.17 is subject to appeal to the court by any creditor or member of the company.

(4) If the chairman is in doubt whether a claim should be admitted or rejected, he shall mark it as objected to and allow votes to be cast in respect of it, subject to such votes being subsequently declared invalid if the objection to the claim is sustained.

 

Andy did have the right to reduce part of a creditor's debt, but only if he had no doubt that it was correct to do so. If he had any doubt, he was obliged to let them vote the full amount, and then himself challenge that part which he felt was wrong. In other words, the CVA should have failed at the meeting, and Andy appeal to the Court to have it passed by reducing HMRC's debt in Court!

 

And a couple of other points. Andy's report on the meeting filed at the Court states that the CVA was approved without modification. I don't think so. The proposal attached to the report, which he says was approved, is not the same as the one sent to the creditors before the meeting.

 

And finally, although not strictly relevant, I found this in the rules

 

1.56. Omission of Information from Statement of Affairs

 

The court, on the application of the nominee, the directors or any person appearing to it to have an interest, may direct that specified information may be omitted from any statement of affairs required to be sent to the creditors where the disclosure of such information would be likely to prejudice the conduct of the voluntary arrangement or might reasonably be expected to lead to violence against any person.

 

Well it made me

[saintjay77]

Belhadj has definitely gone

 

http://www.al-saddclub.com/output/page5524.asp

 

Al Sadd OS

 

There have been a few times in the past where clubs over there state one thing but in reality something different actually happens.

 

Not saying it hasnt happened but with poopy so short of money you would have thought SSN or something would have covered it somewhere.

 

EDIT:

Actually I have just seen this back on the 8th July. I thought it was after this that he said he is not going over there which maybe why we think he hasnt gone but doesnt really matter.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12875_6252862,00.html

Edited 21 July, 2010 by saintjay77

[hutch]

Diop has gone aswell but fee undisclosed.

300,000 Euros, if I remember right.

[Gingeletiss]

I thought I would have a look and see if our optimism over HMRC's chances of winning the appeal are just wishful thinking. But they're really not. HMRC have played a blinder, and have shafted Andy royally, and it looks to me as if it was deliberate.

 

At the creditor's meeting on 6th May Andy was authorised to produce a CVA proposal and put it to the creditors for a vote.

 

Chapter 3 of the Insolvency Rules (1986) states:

 

 

 

Andy duly did his duty and sent out the notice on 28th May, with the required copy of his proposal with the statement of affairs and list of creditors with the amount of their debts attached, scheduling the meeting for 17th June. The important page of his proposal is page 52. Note the figure for VAT,PAYE & NIC, and also that he has NOT included the football creditors. He did include Agents, which I think are football creditors, but we can forgive him for that little slip up.

 

So far so good, and all in line with the rules. Remember, at that time, Andy was confident the HMRC would vote in favour, because he agreed to their demand to liquidate the Company after 9 months and then conduct a forensic inquisition. In his published proposal, HMRC have 42% of the unsecured creditor's voting rights.

 

Then, unfortunately for Andy, and after his proposal was published and in the public domain, HMRC had a change of heart. Now they're going to vote against. Oh shyte. Very angry phone calls between Portsmouth and Hong Kong ensue. What to do?

 

Plan A - reduce HMRC's debt to 24m. Good plan, but still gives them 29%. Oh shyte shyte. So why not include the "secured" unsecured football creditors as well? They'll all vote in favour anyway because they get 100%. Job done. Now HMRC only have 22%. Phew.

 

But did he send out a revised notice with the amended proposal to the creditors? It looks as though he forgot.

 

So HMRC turn up on the 17th expecting to vote 42%, and find that they're only voting 22%. I don't think they were chuffed.

 

The right to appeal is in the Insolvency Act (1986):

 

 

 

and that's what HMRC are doing. But they are also challenging him under the rules, which state:

 

 

 

Andy did have the right to reduce part of a creditor's debt, but only if he had no doubt that it was correct to do so. If he had any doubt, he was obliged to let them vote the full amount, and then himself challenge that part which he felt was wrong. In other words, the CVA should have failed at the meeting, and Andy appeal to the Court to have it passed by reducing HMRC's debt in Court!

 

And a couple of other points. Andy's report on the meeting filed at the Court states that the CVA was approved without modification. I don't think so. The proposal attached to the report, which he says was approved, is not the same as the one sent to the creditors before the meeting.

 

And finally, although not strictly relevant, I found this in the rules

 

 

 

Well it made me

 

 

Post of this thread........loving it:vuvu:

[Doctoroncall]

Have I missed something? AFAIK they've only brought in around £400k so far.

 

I was assuming he will go as the most valuable asset. £3.2m was the figure I've seen. Perhaps it is one of those that the player wants to go somewhere else but the price being offered is lower from the club... we'll just have to wait and see!

[hutch]

EDIT:

Actually I have just seen this back on the 8th July. I thought it was after this that he said he is not going over there which maybe why we think he hasnt gone but doesnt really matter.

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12875_6252862,00.html

It does if they're still paying his wages.

[OldNick]

I thought I would have a look and see if our optimism over HMRC's chances of winning the appeal are just wishful thinking. But they're really not. HMRC have played a blinder, and have shafted Andy royally, and it looks to me as if it was deliberate.

 

At the creditor's meeting on 6th May Andy was authorised to produce a CVA proposal and put it to the creditors for a vote.

 

Chapter 3 of the Insolvency Rules (1986) states:

 

 

 

Andy duly did his duty and sent out the notice on 28th May, with the required copy of his proposal with the statement of affairs and list of creditors with the amount of their debts attached, scheduling the meeting for 17th June. The important page of his proposal is page 52. Note the figure for VAT,PAYE & NIC, and also that he has NOT included the football creditors. He did include Agents, which I think are football creditors, but we can forgive him for that little slip up.

 

So far so good, and all in line with the rules. Remember, at that time, Andy was confident the HMRC would vote in favour, because he agreed to their demand to liquidate the Company after 9 months and then conduct a forensic inquisition. In his published proposal, HMRC have 42% of the unsecured creditor's voting rights.

 

Then, unfortunately for Andy, and after his proposal was published and in the public domain, HMRC had a change of heart. Now they're going to vote against. Oh shyte. Very angry phone calls between Portsmouth and Hong Kong ensue. What to do?

 

Plan A - reduce HMRC's debt to 24m. Good plan, but still gives them 29%. Oh shyte shyte. So why not include the "secured" unsecured football creditors as well? They'll all vote in favour anyway because they get 100%. Job done. Now HMRC only have 22%. Phew.

 

But did he send out a revised notice with the amended proposal to the creditors? It looks as though he forgot.

 

So HMRC turn up on the 17th expecting to vote 42%, and find that they're only voting 22%. I don't think they were chuffed.

 

The right to appeal is in the Insolvency Act (1986):

 

 

 

and that's what HMRC are doing. But they are also challenging him under the rules, which state:

 

 

 

Andy did have the right to reduce part of a creditor's debt, but only if he had no doubt that it was correct to do so. If he had any doubt, he was obliged to let them vote the full amount, and then himself challenge that part which he felt was wrong. In other words, the CVA should have failed at the meeting, and Andy appeal to the Court to have it passed by reducing HMRC's debt in Court!

 

And a couple of other points. Andy's report on the meeting filed at the Court states that the CVA was approved without modification. I don't think so. The proposal attached to the report, which he says was approved, is not the same as the one sent to the creditors before the meeting.

 

And finally, although not strictly relevant, I found this in the rules

 

 

 

Well it made me

Hutch a lot of work went into your post.Very interesting and I truly hope that the HMRC are doing as you say and not that you are a lot brighter than them and they don't realise the faults in AA's work.

Top stuff

[EastleighSoulBoy]

I thought I would have a look and see if our optimism over HMRC's chances of winning the appeal are just wishful thinking. But they're really not. HMRC have played a blinder, and have shafted Andy royally, and it looks to me as if it was deliberate.

 

At the creditor's meeting on 6th May Andy was authorised to produce a CVA proposal and put it to the creditors for a vote.

 

Chapter 3 of the Insolvency Rules (1986) states:

 

 

 

Andy duly did his duty and sent out the notice on 28th May, with the required copy of his proposal with the statement of affairs and list of creditors with the amount of their debts attached, scheduling the meeting for 17th June. The important page of his proposal is page 52. Note the figure for VAT,PAYE & NIC, and also that he has NOT included the football creditors. He did include Agents, which I think are football creditors, but we can forgive him for that little slip up.

 

So far so good, and all in line with the rules. Remember, at that time, Andy was confident the HMRC would vote in favour, because he agreed to their demand to liquidate the Company after 9 months and then conduct a forensic inquisition. In his published proposal, HMRC have 42% of the unsecured creditor's voting rights.

 

Then, unfortunately for Andy, and after his proposal was published and in the public domain, HMRC had a change of heart. Now they're going to vote against. Oh shyte. Very angry phone calls between Portsmouth and Hong Kong ensue. What to do?

 

Plan A - reduce HMRC's debt to 24m. Good plan, but still gives them 29%. Oh shyte shyte. So why not include the "secured" unsecured football creditors as well? They'll all vote in favour anyway because they get 100%. Job done. Now HMRC only have 22%. Phew.

 

But did he send out a revised notice with the amended proposal to the creditors? It looks as though he forgot.

 

So HMRC turn up on the 17th expecting to vote 42%, and find that they're only voting 22%. I don't think they were chuffed.

 

The right to appeal is in the Insolvency Act (1986):

 

 

 

and that's what HMRC are doing. But they are also challenging him under the rules, which state:

 

 

 

Andy did have the right to reduce part of a creditor's debt, but only if he had no doubt that it was correct to do so. If he had any doubt, he was obliged to let them vote the full amount, and then himself challenge that part which he felt was wrong. In other words, the CVA should have failed at the meeting, and Andy appeal to the Court to have it passed by reducing HMRC's debt in Court!

 

And a couple of other points. Andy's report on the meeting filed at the Court states that the CVA was approved without modification. I don't think so. The proposal attached to the report, which he says was approved, is not the same as the one sent to the creditors before the meeting.

 

And finally, although not strictly relevant, I found this in the rules

 

 

 

Well it made me

 

Thanks Hatch. That clarifies some muddy water. AA just didn't realise how deep it is!

[rallyboy]

nice one Hutch.

I don't mind analysing the basic maths

 

HUGE outgoings - tiny income + insolvent trading x relegation = (BIG TROUBLE x prison)

 

but I get bored with the legal small print and leave that to the experts!

 

 

 

 

Which is perhaps a lesson for AA to consider - know your limitations puppet boy, just hang on the string and dance when Chanrai slips fivers down your thong.