Best interests of creditors ??? (1 Viewer)

[CCFCSteve]

Im still struggling to see how accepting a sisu related bid after they have indicated they will never return to the Ricoh, which potentially increases creditor claims (acls claim for future unpaid rent in respect of the long lease that has been breached) by 10's of millions is 'acting in the best interests of all creditors' ?

I hope ACL ask the question.

 

---

[theferret]

They can ask it, but it will be pointless. Unsecured creditors receiving ALL the money they are owed following the administration of a debtor is almost unheard of. Having received all monies owed, if they tried to pursue SISU for future revenues it would be laughed out. A complete non-starter. ACL need to get over it and move on.

 

[bigfatronssba]

They can ask it, but it will be pointless. Unsecured creditors receiving ALL the money they are owed following the administration of a debtor is almost unheard of. Having received all monies owed, if they tried to pursue SISU for future revenues it would be laughed out. A complete non-starter. ACL need to get over it and move on.

Why would it be laughed out? Its a contractual agreement.

 

[rupert_bear]

I just hink the administrator is playing by the rules, he has to act by law in the best interests of creditors the fact most of the creditors are sisu related isn't his concern. The FL have a different power and it will be interesting which course they take. Going by their rules and stipulations regarding grounds i find it difficult how they can favour anyone with no ground when there is one up the road, no land as yet to build one, no planning permission which could take months if not years. If the FL turn sisu down on the basis described i can't see how they (sisu) could win any court case. All this does though is show us all how corrupt the world of big business is.

 

[oldskyblue58]

The ACL claim would be something like the £600k quoted in the administrators document plus say 3 years of the remaining lease. They will not be entitled to 42 years at 1.3m. They get compensation in effect for the period it should take to re-let the premises.

Very very unlikely to be successful in challenging that in court if the above is paid in full. Would simply be giving more money to barristers and lawyers

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

The ACL claim would be something like the £600k quoted in the administrators document plus say 3 years of the remaining lease. They will not be entitled to 42 years at 1.3m. They get compensation in effect for the period it should take to re-let the premises.

Very very unlikely to be successful in challenging that in court if the above is paid in full. Would simply be giving more money to barristers and lawyers

So all this time dedicated to a rent boycott only to pay up in the end?

 

[oldskyblue58]

but they pay up and break the lease by liquidating CCFC Ltd. If the premises not used the licence costs would be lower so the amount to pay ACL would be also I suspect.

 

[blueflint]

a very underhanded way to do business may just be legal but very immoral

 

[bigfatronssba]

but they pay up and break the lease by liquidating CCFC Ltd. If the premises not used the licence costs would be lower so the amount to pay ACL would be also I suspect.

Why could they not have just transfered the golden share to holdings and liquidate Ltd in the first place?

 

[wingy]

but they pay up and break the lease by liquidating CCFC Ltd. If the premises not used the licence costs would be lower so the amount to pay ACL would be also I suspect.

So somewhere between£800k - £1M.?

 

[theferret]

Why would it be laughed out? Its a contractual agreement.

It doesn't matter. If a creditor is up-to-date with payments and but wishes to pull out of a contract because it can no longer meet payments and ceases to use the services provided by the creditor no court will ever insist that it continues to make payments, at worst a small penalty will be levied. It just doesn't really happen, especially following an administration process where the debtor has been paid up-to-date for all services rendered. These are unique circumstances and ACL could go down this route, but it would be very high risk - and while the legal action was in process there would be no prospect of the club playing there under a new agreement, and at the end of it they would not likely receive very much if anything at all.

 

[Skybluesquirrel]

Why could they not have just transfered the golden share to holdings and liquidate Ltd in the first place?

Tax relief on the 'losses'. Handy should we ever make a profit.

 

[CCFCSteve]

The ACL claim would be something like the £600k quoted in the administrators document plus say 3 years of the remaining lease. They will not be entitled to 42 years at 1.3m. They get compensation in effect for the period it should take to re-let the premises.

Very very unlikely to be successful in challenging that in court if the above is paid in full. Would simply be giving more money to barristers and lawyers

The principle you quote is 100% correct in terms of mitigating the claim and works well in practice with standard tenanted properties, however, ACL will never get someone in at 1.2m per annum for the remaining term of the lease (I'm not even sure they will ever replace having the club there). On that basis I think their claim is substantially higher.

By insisting the club will never play at the Ricoh again, Fisher was crystallising a substantial contingent claim in my eyes and one which I'm not sure has been properly recognised. Happy to be proved wrong though.

 

[theferret]

The principle you quote is 100% correct in terms of mitigating the claim and works well in practice with standard tenanted properties, however, ACL will never get someone in at 1.2m per annum for the remaining term of the lease. On that basis I think their claim is substantially higher.

But it wouldn't work like that surely? You can't heap extra penalties on the out-going tenant simply because it is recognised that the landlord would struggle to get another tenant in at the same rate, or indeed another tenant in at all (genuine question because my knowledge on these matters is limited).

Surely though, once in full control, SISU could liquidate Ltd at some future point anyway?

 

[Godiva]

but they pay up and break the lease by liquidating CCFC Ltd. If the premises not used the licence costs would be lower so the amount to pay ACL would be also I suspect.

How would a break of the lease influence the ACL accounts?
Is the value of the lease an asset or left out?

 

[CCFCSteve]

But it wouldn't work like that surely? You can't heap extra penalties on the out-going tenant simply because it is recognised that the landlord would struggle to get another tenant in at the same rate, or indeed another tenant in at all (genuine question because my knowledge on these matters is limited).

Surely though, once in full control, SISU could liquidate Ltd at some future point anyway?

The club signed up to a very long lease. Unless there are break clauses it is possible to claim a substantial amount of the remaining term if it is believe it would remain vacant (subject to discounts)

The difficulty with a standium is knowing who and how the club can be replaced as a tenant and then put a figure on it.

Very tricky