If I was ACL I wouldn't agree to that CVA. Bearing in mind they will be missing out on 40 years of £1.2 million a year (£48 million) plus the years rent already owed the half a million offered just wouldn't cut it for me.
Or is it £16m (£400k)?
Acl need to refuse to except vca and help put ccfc into liquidation. This is the only way we will keep ccfc in the city and oust sisu. The Fl have proved they are spineless.
Yes I said Otium owe to SISU but perhaps Otium owe to SBS&L is more accurate.Just a couple of things
Keep in mind this is a group situation that has one of its companies in administration
Old debts - a large chunk of the debt relates to monies SISU took on at a discount when they came in but they did not discount in the accounts of CCFC Ltd. So in reality are nothing more than paper figures
ARVO - the debt that is owed to them was the crystalisation of a security charge. IT does not mean ARVO ever put 10.25 (including at least 2m in interest charged) in to CCFC Ltd. So they are writing off that charge BUT there is a similar charge on CCFC H that still exists
the CCFC H accounts for the 5 years to 31/05/11 had already made provisions against the amount that company was owed by CCFC Ltd. So whilst the debt still existed CCFC H already valued it at nil and had taken the loss in the 5 years of SISU ownership already
The bulk of the SISU money has been put in via SBS&l putting money in to CCFC H who then put the money in to CCFC Ltd. CCFC H will still owe SBS&L that money but not be owed any thing by CCFCLtd
Would guess the SBS&L debt is probably legals etc that have been allocated to CCFC Ltd to load it with debt as such the Group will still owe them
It is SBS&L that is head of the Group and still owes SISU investors the money they put in
SBS&L owns Otium which owns CCFC H which owns CCFC Ltd
They have "written off" amounts in CCFC Ltd which if this were a single stand alone company would mean that SISU/ARVO have lost the money. BUT it is not a single company it is a group and the money is owed elsewhere.
Clever accounting but the "write downs" of loans/debts do not actually represent loss of physical asset that it might seem
I'm sure that Fisher said that all external creditors(ACL mainly) would be paid in full?
Doesn't look that way from what Appleton is saying.
I'm sure that Fisher said that all external creditors(ACL mainly) would be paid in full?
Doesn't look that way from what Appleton is saying.
He did and specifically clarified that ACL would get every penny.I'm sure that Fisher said that all external creditors(ACL mainly) would be paid in full?
Doesn't look that way from what Appleton is saying.
The contract was never actually changed.
He did and specifically clarified that ACL would get every penny.
Am sure the SISU argument is they'd be paid every penny... according to what their final deal laid on the table for acceptance or not, was.
Am sure the SISU argument is they'd be paid every penny... according to what their final deal laid on the table for acceptance or not, was.
The deal that they rejected?
one thing is for certain 60.95m of debt has not disappeared from the Group ........... and in this context it is the bigger picture of the group that is important not the individual company of CCFC Ltd
(using CT figures of 24.7 + 7.5 +11.5+ 7+ 10.25 = 60.95)
Didnt appleton say the creditors would be paid in full which is why he accepted the SISU bid?
How is it the best deal for the creditors when Haskell said he'd made a generous offer for SISUs debt and SISU will just wipe the debt clean? As a creditor SISU get nothing? Surely even if Haskell was offering just 1p per pound its a better deal for the debt?
Didnt appleton say the creditors would be paid in full which is why he accepted the SISU bid?
How is it the best deal for the creditors when Haskell said he'd made a generous offer for SISUs debt and SISU will just wipe the debt clean? As a creditor SISU get nothing? Surely even if Haskell was offering just 1p per pound its a better deal for the debt?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?