Could Gibson face Morris in court?

R

Rueben

Member
I understand Derby taking the punishment but surely MM should be held accountable for this and the complete shambles he's left dcfc in?
Could it end up with Gibson and MM in court as he was effectively the one who broke the rules?
 
Priv said:
No, that’s not how it works. Liability is limited to the company.
Click to expand...
Not always, if they've been trading when they know they're effectively insolvent, which I think can cover taking out other additional credit, and not paying invoices when they're heading directly for insolvency with little chance of avoiding it, or if any of the below apply:
  • Preferential payments: when one creditor is paid in favour of others, it creates a ‘preference’ - the recipient may be required to repay the money.
  • Transactions at an undervalue: if an asset has been sold for less than its true value, it diminishes returns for creditors and may be reversed by the liquidator.
  • Personal guarantees: if personal guarantees have been provided, the lender may enforce the guarantee to recover their money. Failing to repay a personal guarantee will be considered a breach of its terms.

Morris May have been paying himself for things, when invoices to others were more overdue (i.e from HMRC etc), also the ground thing, if that's found to have been intentionally undervalued, there could be some bother there.

If Morris has said he would back loans with his own cash, he'll have to cough up also.

The liability is limited, but not none existent, especially recently as some of the rules changed to make directors/ owners more liable, when they're taking the ****.
 
Andy_W said:
Not always, if they've been trading when they know they're effectively insolvent, which I think can cover taking out other additional credit, and not paying invoices when they're heading directly for insolvency with little chance of avoiding it, or if any of the below apply:
  • Preferential payments: when one creditor is paid in favour of others, it creates a ‘preference’ - the recipient may be required to repay the money.
  • Transactions at an undervalue: if an asset has been sold for less than its true value, it diminishes returns for creditors and may be reversed by the liquidator.
  • Personal guarantees: if personal guarantees have been provided, the lender may enforce the guarantee to recover their money. Failing to repay a personal guarantee will be considered a breach of its terms.

Morris May have been paying himself for things, when invoices to others were more overdue (i.e from HMRC etc), also the ground thing, if that's found to have been intentionally undervalued, there could be some bother there.

If Morris has said he would back loans with his own cash, he'll have to cough up also.

The liability is limited, but not none existent, especially recently as some of the rules changed to make directors/ owners more liable, when they're taking the ****.
Click to expand...
Think the ground was intentionally OVERvalued.
 
UgoAfro said:
Think the ground was intentionally OVERvalued.
Click to expand...
Yup which will make a challenge for selling it back to a new owner, because they won't buy it back at an over valued price and if they buy it back undervalued then that opens up the issues regarding selling to avoid FFP
 
I would pay to see them in the ring.
I’d even pay £45 on a Friday night for a televised bout and not complain
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top