Admin: ACL v SISU, where it might be heading... (1 Viewer)

[oldskyblue58]

best solution today is that the administrators proposals are approved and we move to the preferred bidder stage........... but I think that has a while to run yet

 

---

[simple_simon]

connected creditors to CCFC Ltd would be any creditor that is part of the SISU empire including ARVO............. the rest are unconnected

Can I ask a question?
What if Fisher has put a bid in, not actually anyone from SISU?

 

[wingy]

If you mean liquidate, they can't while CCFC Ltd is in administration.

That's what I'm thinking and if the Club LTD goes to others ,then they have nothing to liquidate but the name and 2-3 players of negligible value.so should we heed the threat.

 

[Bluegloucester]

That's what I'm thinking and if the Club LTD goes to others ,then they have nothing to liquidate but the name and 2-3 players of negligible value.so should we heed the threat.

More hot air from Tim

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Well as TF said this morning on CWR that PA was running the club i guess it is up to PA to sort it all out............. although i could have sworn it was TF at the forums etc talking about CCFC and the direction we are taking.

Touché, mon ami!

 

[Godiva]

It's a really, really good question.

I think ACL might be able to challenge this route even if paid the £650k in full, because there's clearly a contract for another 40-odd years at £1.2m and the Administrator has the option via other bids to maintain CCFC Ltd as a going concern (which would mean a better chance of the lease being fulfilled, presumably).

But truthfully, I don't know.

That 'free rent' move by ACL looks to me like positioning for a long battle though.

But ACL has not claimed the lease is broken - as they could when the club defaulted on the payments - so the lease itself is not part of the debts and can not be part of the administration.
I raised that question when we entered admin, but noone knew the answer.

 

[wingy]

But ACL has not claimed the lease is broken - as they could when the club defaulted on the payments - so the lease itself is not part of the debts and can not be part of the administration.
I raised that question when we entered admin, but noone knew the answer.

Why do you think they played it that way Godiva?? They wouldn't expose themselves and lose out through negligence or ineptitude surely .There must be a reason they did'nt challenge when PA was appointed.

 

[duffer]

But ACL has not claimed the lease is broken - as they could when the club defaulted on the payments - so the lease itself is not part of the debts and can not be part of the administration.
I raised that question when we entered admin, but noone knew the answer.

Hi Godiva, again, I'm no expert on company insolvency but I was doing some research on this last night.

I think OSB has already alluded to this earlier, but in essence the voting process for coming out of admin with a Company Voluntary Arrangement isn't straightforward.

Although it looks like ARVO & SISU hold the larger part of the debt, with ACL 'only' throwing in the £600k they are currently owed, the 75% voting by value to exit Admin via a CVA has to contain 50% of unconnected creditors. SISU/ARVO/CCFC Holdings are classed as connected creditors as I understand it, because they are linked to CCFC Ltd.

So in essence I think this means that ACL could vote down any deal for a CVA.

Even then, if a CVA was pushed through that was unfairly prejudicial to ACL (perhaps in terms here of what future rent they might achieve after CCFC Ltd exits administration), then I think it could be challenged in court.

Basically then, even though SISU & ARVO have magically loaded £60m of debt on a non-trading entity (CCFC Ltd), it still doesn't give them complete control over how the administration pans out.

(Hope this makes sense, there's a link below which will open a case study on landlords and CVAs, if you're really interested.)

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...Afz3Vx_GElZR8ioBw&sig2=7vd6iK7z-Xx4SoIYypFtiQ

 

[oldskyblue58]

an administrator can not dismiss a lease therefore the lease is still in existence and forms part of what the administrator is dealing with. If it didnt form part of it then PA would never have been involved in arranging the last 3 home games of the season.

Only a liquidator can dismiss or break the lease unless the landlord choses to - ACL would not do that