Interestingly...ahead of tomorrow: (1 Viewer)

[Paxman II]

"If Sisu has cleverly structured it so that Holdings owns the club but ltd holds the liabilities then this may act as a scupper to putting Holdings in admin, but the court can pull apart the corporate structure and make ltd's shareholder (Holdings) liable for ltd, in which case holdings would then be direct in line for administration"

That from the lawyer I have on the case. Woh did not see that scenario!

 

---

[corniepaste]

"If Sisu has cleverly structured it so that Holdings owns the club but ltd holds the liabilities then this may act as a scupper to putting Holdings in admin, but the court can pull apart the corporate structure and make ltd's shareholder (Holdings) liable for ltd, in which case holdings would then be direct in line for administration"

That from the lawyer I have on the case. Woh did not see that scenario!

Good point, but I think it actually makes it easier as a high court should look at where this company operates, in the a football league, and to whom they do business with, the league. If they see a glaring contradiction like one subsidiary holds the license to play and is registered to do business/play, The other subsidiary doesn't yet fields the team without registration, the they should class that as fraudulent practice. Just a thought.

 

[wingy]

"If Sisu has cleverly structured it so that Holdings owns the club but ltd holds the liabilities then this may act as a scupper to putting Holdings in admin, but the court can pull apart the corporate structure and make ltd's shareholder (Holdings) liable for ltd, in which case holdings would then be direct in line for administration"

That from the lawyer I have on the case. Woh did not see that scenario!

Think OSB drew this conclusion also Pax but its good to knowthat a legal eagle also draws that conclusion ,well not good but accurate.

 

[ampthill_sba]

It's going to happen...either (1) holdings ltd will be forced into admin after all or (2) the court will state that CCFC in admin is nonsense and the decision will be reversed and the parties sent for mediation.

 

[Paxman II]

It's going to happen...either (1) holdings ltd will be forced into admin after all or (2) the court will state that CCFC in admin is nonsense and the decision will be reversed and the parties sent for mediation.

Apparently you can't reverse or as I had thought revoke it

 

[ampthill_sba]

I gathered there is a grace period?

 

[corniepaste]

It's going to happen...either (1) holdings ltd will be forced into admin after all or (2) the court will state that CCFC in admin is nonsense and the decision will be reversed and the parties sent for mediation.

Agreed, effectively sitting down with all parties until there is a resolution. Annoyingly I think both parties will bring a lot of toys to throw around and behave like kids, However with legal proceedings comes a third party, the judge, to stop people dicking around. We definitely wont see anything from the fa as regards points till this blows over.

 

[cloughie]

It's going to happen...either (1) holdings ltd will be forced into admin after all or (2) the court will state that CCFC in admin is nonsense and the decision will be reversed and the parties sent for mediation.

Sorry but option 2 is not an option for the court

 

[ampthill_sba]

Sorry but option 2 is not an option for the court

Can the judge not decide that the CCFC admin decision is erroneous as the parent company can easily afford the debt...and therefore reverse the judgement?

 

[Bluegloucester]

Can the judge not decide that the CCFC admin decision is erroneous as the parent company can easily afford the debt...and therefore reverse the judgement?

the company put itself into administration.

 

[ampthill_sba]

the company put itself into administration.

Yes, but it might be fraudulently...and the court could decide this is the case...

 

[Paxman II]

Hard to see how you can revoke an administration order, unless it was wrongly given (I.e. was not given on the basis for the giving of an administration order under the Insolvency Act 1986) - and I doubt that would be the case. So if ccfc ltd is in admin, it's in admin.

 

[ampthill_sba]

Hard to see how you can revoke an administration order, unless it was wrongly given (I.e. was not given on the basis for the giving of an administration order under the Insolvency Act 1986) - and I doubt that would be the case. So if ccfc ltd is in admin, it's in admin.

In that case what are the options available to the judge?

 

[Bluegloucester]

Yes, but it might be fraudulently...and the court could decide this is the case...

that is a different matter, Fisher et al may have to wear brown trousers. Think judge would look to err against fraud, high burden of proof. Likely to prove transfer of assets not valid.

 

[rupert_bear]

Wil sisu turn up !!!

 

[cloughie]

Wil sisu turn up !!!

If they do I'm sure they will say but your honor we have never been before a court before.......................

We usually don't turn up

 

[italiahorse]

These days anything could happen.
Expect the unexpected.

In my limited knowledge I would wonder why a company owned by a bigger but financially stable company could go into administration.
If I was the judge I would say to SISU you can pay the debt so Admin is bollocks ( legal term )
As for paying it, it's just a debt and we are all in debt. Get a court to clarify if it should be paid.

Life's simple for me !!!

 

[ampthill_sba]

These days anything could happen.
Expect the unexpected.

In my limited knowledge I would wonder why a company owned by a bigger but financially stable company could go into administration.
If I was the judge I would say to SISU you can pay the debt so Admin is bollocks ( legal term )
As for paying it, it's just a debt and we are all in debt. Get a court to clarify if it should be paid.

Life's simple for me !!!

This is also what I'd expect to happen...if common sense is allowed to prevail (regardless of the rule of law)...

 

[Bluegloucester]

These days anything could happen.
Expect the unexpected.

In my limited knowledge I would wonder why a company owned by a bigger but financially stable company could go into administration.
If I was the judge I would say to SISU you can pay the debt so Admin is bollocks ( legal term )
As for paying it, it's just a debt and we are all in debt. Get a court to clarify if it should be paid.

Life's simple for me !!!

Who's to say the bigger company is solvent? The time to pay has passed.

 

[italiahorse]

Who's to say the bigger company is solvent? The time to pay has passed.

Even I can dispute a debt. A court would eventually sort it.

 

[Jack Griffin]

the company put itself into administration.

I think the AVRO fund did that.

 

[Spencer]

Sorry but option 2 is not an option for the court

If the admin is reversed option 2 is an option for the parties to agree upon by consent - and a consent order can be issued by the court.

This is civil law, not criminal law, as long as the parties aren't agreeing anything illegal they can agree anything including the jurisdiction of the court.

I would say that a majority of court orders, in civil cases, are consent orders. That's why you find the solicitors getting together before the hearing - to see what they can agree to agree and to agree what they agree to disagree on.

 

[Spencer]

that is a different matter, Fisher et al may have to wear brown trousers. Think judge would look to err against fraud, high burden of proof. Likely to prove transfer of assets not valid.

That's very true. Fraud is a criminal act and this is being heard in a civil court.

 

[chiefdave]

if the judge thinks there's something that needs pulling apart and examining in detail will that mean another adjournment? They don't schedule much time for this sort of hearing do they, would guess they would need to either instruct someone independent to do some investigation or schedule a longer session for both sides to give their argument. Can see this not being resolved today.

 

[Spencer]

if the judge thinks there's something that needs pulling apart and examining in detail will that mean another adjournment? They don't schedule much time for this sort of hearing do they, would guess they would need to either instruct someone independent to do some investigation or schedule a longer session for both sides to give their argument. Can see this not being resolved today.

True, I guess this is a just a directions hearing. If the judge has to agree things, rather than the parties, than there will need to be a full hearing which will take some time.

Generally, the solicitors will know the rough direction a decision will go in though and will drive the parties in that direction (unless one or more of the parties are totally intransigent).

 

[mattylad]

quite simple really the case can be upheld,, thrown out or adjourned. Remember two things are being disputed, one is that CCFC Ltd and CCFC Holding are not different companies and the second the choice of administrator. It is possible one and not both will be ruled on.