1
1940 oldfive
Guest
correct me if I am wrong but did not honest tim say that acl would be paid in full
SkyBlueSwiss
New Member
Paid what in full? The full 45 year lease (or however many years are left to run)?
I think not!
I think not!
Manchester_sky_blue
Well-Known Member
The unpaid rent from last year, which he did say I believe.
SkyBlueSwiss
New Member
But the unpaid rent from last year is not the full legal liability, only the current amount of debt under administration. Once administration is exited, the lease starts running again and rent is due again.
Manchester_sky_blue
Well-Known Member
Absolutely, your right, but none-the-less thats not what Tim said, which was the original question asked.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
except the creditors are not being paid in full they are being paid 25.95p in the £ if they accept the CVA.
74.05% of the debt to unrelated creditors is not being paid - TF was playing with words just for a change :facepalm: The amount paid relates to a 25.95% of the debt accepted by the administrator ..... that is not the same as the debt legally owed under the lease/licence
(oh and btw the full liabilities (100%) to related creditors - SISU/ARVO- still exist in the rest of the Group)
74.05% of the debt to unrelated creditors is not being paid - TF was playing with words just for a change :facepalm: The amount paid relates to a 25.95% of the debt accepted by the administrator ..... that is not the same as the debt legally owed under the lease/licence
(oh and btw the full liabilities (100%) to related creditors - SISU/ARVO- still exist in the rest of the Group)
Last edited:
Paul Appleton said he accepted Otiums bid because it gave the best deal for the unsecured creditors this is clearly not true, ACL will get 500k but lose a 40 year lease worth about 50mill, if someone else had brought it this wouldn't be the case.
I assumed they would pay acl in full then otium would liquidate limited, while this would have been equally bad for ACL then Appleton could actually make the argument that he was following his legal duty and had picked the best option for the unsecured creditors and its not his fault if Otium then liquidate.
But since this isn't what is happening I don't see how Appleton can make any sort of argument that this deal was the best one on the table for the unsecured creditors like he said.
I assumed they would pay acl in full then otium would liquidate limited, while this would have been equally bad for ACL then Appleton could actually make the argument that he was following his legal duty and had picked the best option for the unsecured creditors and its not his fault if Otium then liquidate.
But since this isn't what is happening I don't see how Appleton can make any sort of argument that this deal was the best one on the table for the unsecured creditors like he said.
