Breaking News - Judge kicks out SISU's judicial review against CCC / ACL (6 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Warwickhunt

Warwickhunt

Well-Known Member
deanocity3 said:
The Council have won, but they still putting up your council tax next year:(
Click to expand...
And the Council have got to find £19million of Cuts this year, i don't know where the council is going to find the money because normally they have a contigency fund for this sort of event but for som reason they have'nt got one anymore
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
skybluehugh said:
Temper, temper.

Please review your replies to my posts and THEN tell me who made this personal. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Shut up, ignore me, stop being a cocksucker and trying to deliberately derail a thread for whatever agenda.
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
the clubs response is

Short statement following this morning's Judicial Review ruling
Coventry City Football Club has noted the ruling by Mr Justice Males on the Judicial Review and will consider the decision before taking its next steps.


Read more at http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/club-statement-060813-971908.aspx#xuo3HvXztr2ppB5A.99

interesting as the club apparently now rests with Otium who were not party to the JR claim which was instigated by SISU, ARVO and CCFC H. I would suggest the club has no steps to take in this.
 
DazzleTommyDazzle

DazzleTommyDazzle

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
I think the chances of ACL getting the lost rent have gone with the Administration.
Click to expand...

This is the bit I'm not sure about.

I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that ACL took legal advice on all aspects of the administration before they made their decision to reject the CVA.

Rejecting the CVA was always likely to lead to the proposed liquidation and hence the loss of the £590k (if I remember correctly) offer. So why not take it?

If I'd been in ACL's situation and a creditor had walked away from contracted debts and then told me that (despite what the most recent accounts said) the relevant company was now non-trading, I'd have been straight on to the most aggressive lawyers I could find and briefed them to go after the associated companies and the Directors.

Will this be the next step from ACL?
 
Sub

Sub

Well-Known Member
im glad mr fisher stated in his previous statement that we can concentrate on football matters now:pointlaugh:
 
S

skybluehugh

New Member
I am getting more and more pissed off with SSN. No mention at all about the major decision regarding our club. Unless it's Hearts, Rangers or Pompy we are just a filler when they have a couple of minutes to fill.
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
was told that Labovitch will be on SSN around 2 30 not sure if it is correct though.

he might even pull the interview following todays news
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
DazzleTommyDazzle said:
Rejecting the CVA was always likely to lead to the proposed liquidation and hence the loss of the £590k (if I remember correctly) offer. So why not take it?

If I'd been in ACL's situation and a creditor had walked away from contracted debts and then told me that (despite what the most recent accounts said) the relevant company was now non-trading, I'd have been straight on to the most aggressive lawyers I could find and briefed them to go after the associated companies and the Directors.

Will this be the next step from ACL?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't there then be the danger you do that, we go through the same process again... as said associated companies still owe lots of cash, they get wound up too?

You are right though, it's a slightly absurd decision if there isn't a future 'plan' to reject the cash... although given dropping the JR was a condition (a condition SISU didn't accept - which they could have done to make themselves look better too), one could also assume although thrown out, there was an element of doubt whether it would be.

Which means going forward, nothing is certain.

For a change(!)

I'd contribute to an anti statement fighting fund mind you.
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
skybluehugh said:
But and I know it is a big BUT, if it can be proven hat our owners DID move assets from one to the other then ACL/CCC can go after Shitsu not just the club company's . Well I hope so anyway.
Click to expand...

Ooh, it's better than that. I'm not saying this has happened, mind, but if a company's directors are found guilty of fraudulent and/or wrongful trading, then they themselves can be held liable for the debts of the company. (Edit: This includes shadow directors, fwiw).

This is something I think the liquidator would typically investigate, rather than the creditors. But if the creditors don't think the liquidator is doing a robust enough job I presume they can challenge his decisions in court. This in much the same way Mr Appleton may find himself challenged.

I don't know the former as fact, I should say - the latter about PA is true though I believe, there is a right to challenge an administrator's decision in court.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
The Penguin said:
After today's statement, so would I.

We've finally hit that point where someone has basically said, "This statement is to say we don't actually really have a statement".
Click to expand...

Frankly it's one of the few I can handle.

Apart from the fact it's a statement that announces a prelude to another statement.

And here we go again!
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
skybluehugh said:
Also can you please show any post on here other than the ones to YOU, where I have tried to derail this thread?
Click to expand...

Nice of you to admit to trying to derail the thread. Please stop, ignore me if I offend you that much.
 
S

skybluehugh

New Member
duffer said:
Ooh, it's better than that. I'm not saying this has happened, mind, but if a company's directors are found guilty of fraudulent and/or wrongful trading, then they themselves can be held liable for the debts of the company.

This is something I think the liquidator would typically investigate, rather than the creditors. But if the creditors don't think the liquidator isn't doing a robust enough job I presume they can challenge his decisions in court. This in much the same way Mr Appleton may find himself challenged.

I don't know the former as fact, I should say - the latter about PA is true though I believe, there is a right to challenge an administrator's decision in court.
Click to expand...

Am I right in thinking that Appleton still has to go back to court and explain why he has made the decisions he has made? It could be interesting to hear his excuses.
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
DazzleTommyDazzle said:
This is the bit I'm not sure about.

I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that ACL took legal advice on all aspects of the administration before they made their decision to reject the CVA.

Rejecting the CVA was always likely to lead to the proposed liquidation and hence the loss of the £590k (if I remember correctly) offer. So why not take it?

If I'd been in ACL's situation and a creditor had walked away from contracted debts and then told me that (despite what the most recent accounts said) the relevant company was now non-trading, I'd have been straight on to the most aggressive lawyers I could find and briefed them to go after the associated companies and the Directors.

Will this be the next step from ACL?
Click to expand...

Yep - not saying that that won't happen, but the tricky thing is that CCFC Ltd is a separate entity in law. I don't know how you could extend the claim to the associated companies. Similarly, with the claims against the directors, I'm not sure you can do much more than flag it up to the relevant authorities like the police (for fraud) and the Administrator and/or liquidator.

I think this is why ACL voted down the CVA, because they genuinely believe there's something that needs investigating more thoroughly than Appleton has done, and this is their best chance of getting that investigation.

I'm not trying to defend SISU here to be clear. I'd like them to come to the table and negotiate honestly to get CCFC back home. Failing that I'd enjoy seeing them pulled apart limb by limb (metaphorically speaking).
 
DazzleTommyDazzle

DazzleTommyDazzle

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
Wouldn't there then be the danger you do that, we go through the same process again... as said associated companies still owe lots of cash, they get wound up too?

You are right though, it's a slightly absurd decision if there isn't a future 'plan' to reject the cash... although given dropping the JR was a condition (a condition SISU didn't accept - which they could have done to make themselves look better too), one could also assume although thrown out, there was an element of doubt whether it would be.

Which means going forward, nothing is certain.

For a change(!)

I'd contribute to an anti statement fighting fund mind you.
Click to expand...

That's true - but if it were established that all the companies were "associated" (in the context of the lease), then if SISU went down the administration route, we'd have a proper administration i.e. the football club would be in administration rather than "a non-trading property owning subsidiary".

Then potential buyers might have a chance of competing on a more level playing field.

Seems I might be in a minority of one, but I think some of the statements have been marvellously entertaining. Much better than the bland nonsense that normally gets pumped out!
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
DazzleTommyDazzle said:
Seems I might be in a minority of one, but I think some of the statements have been marvellously entertaining. Much better than the bland nonsense that normally gets pumped out!
Click to expand...

Christ, I know watching |City can addle the mind of what's entertainment but...!

It's just so depressing they can't talk to one another, but can talk about!
 
DazzleTommyDazzle

DazzleTommyDazzle

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
Yep - not saying that that won't happen, but the tricky thing is that CCFC Ltd is a separate entity in law. I don't know how you could extend the claim to the associated companies. Similarly, with the claims against the directors, I'm not sure you can do much more than flag it up to the relevant authorities like the police (for fraud) and the Administrator and/or liquidator.

I think this is why ACL voted down the CVA, because they genuinely believe there's something that needs investigating more thoroughly than Appleton has done, and this is their best chance of getting that investigation.

I'm not trying to defend SISU here to be clear. I'd like them to come to the table and negotiate honestly to get CCFC back home. Failing that I'd enjoy seeing them pulled apart limb by limb (metaphorically speaking).
Click to expand...

I think that you'd have to show that the trade was in Ltd, was transferred out to Holdings for no sensible consideration and that it was done to avoid the liabilities in Ltd.

Not sure how easy that would be to prove, but if you could "we'd have a whole new ball game going" (if you're old enough to remember Hugh Johns on Star Soccer!!).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top