Prescott Vs Mike D

[Dazzza]

Dirty big document from an April 2007 hearing some tasty stuff buried but nothing that I can see that directly has implications for the club.

http://www.thegovernmentsays.com/cache/176449.html

[Dazzza]

Explains why Dunwoody became Pia all of a sudden and turned insolvant.

[Dazzza]

Mr Prescott sought permission to appeal to this court from the order of Simon J on the following grounds: the restrictive covenants were not enforceable because the Partnership had been dissolved for the following reasons: first, Mr Prescott's purported expulsion from the partnership on or around May 5, 2005 caused the Partnership to dissolve by operation of the partnership agreement; second, the Partnership ceased to trade and was dissolved on July 31, 2005 and the subsequent transfer of the Partnership's assets to the Company did not transfer any cause of action to the transferee Company; third, the Partnership should have been dissolved at its inception because Mr Diamandis was at that time in breach of a director's disqualification between 1997 and November 2004 which later became the subject of criminal investigations. Mr Prescott argued that Mr Diamandis had also committed various repudiatory breaches prior to Mr Prescott leaving the partnership. Mr Prescott also argued that: the restrictive covenant against soliciting customers did not apply because it contained a carve-out for those customers which an outgoing partner has introduced to the firm, and any football and rugby customers solicited by Mr Prescott had previously been introduced to the firm by him; Ms Rutter had not interfered with clients of the firm; her contribution to the firm had been exaggerated by the Company; her contribution was in any event subject to an overhead of £34,800 which should have been deducted from the damages awarded.

Probably explains why the DTI opened it's books again.

[Reg Smeeton]

Interesting find Dazzza.....can you or anyone else put it into layman's terms?

[Dazzza]

My very rough grasp is that Diamandis claimed and won damages due to Prescott poaching customers and staff after Dunwoody went insolvant.

Prescott argued that Dunwoody was no more and Diamandis was banned as a director technically he did no wrong.

Judge awarded Mike 60 odd k.

[Reg Smeeton]

Hmmm Prescott was wheeled out as the front man of the Carson Consortium back in the day, he was supposed to have 52,000 shares and be a partner in DSM...he then rapidly disappeared off the scene.

[pauld]

My very rough grasp is that Diamandis claimed and won damages due to Prescott poaching customers and staff after Dunwoody went insolvant.

Prescott argued that Dunwoody was no more and Diamandis was banned as a director technically he did no wrong.

Judge awarded Mike 60 odd k.

Erm, you've got that a bit backwards Dazza insofar as what this document pertains to - the link you cite is a summary of Nick Prescott's successful appeal against the orginal damages award against him. The outcome is that some of the damages stand, some have been struck out.

[Dazzza]

My very rough grasp is that Diamandis claimed and won damages due to Prescott poaching customers and staff after Dunwoody went insolvant.

Prescott argued that Dunwoody was no more and Diamandis was banned as a director technically he did no wrong.

Judge awarded Mike 60 odd k.

Erm, you've got that a bit backwards Dazza insofar as what this document pertains to - the link you cite is a summary of Nick Prescott's successful appeal against the orginal damages award against him. The outcome is that some of the damages stand, some have been struck out.

Gotcha and cheers, t'was more of a sweaty grope  than a rough grasp then.  

[pauld]

Hmmm Prescott was wheeled out as the front man of the Carson Consortium back in the day, he was supposed to have 52,000 shares and be a partner in DSM...he then rapidly disappeared off the scene.

He was - he was Diamandis' placeman on the board. Then, like everyone else, he fell out with Diamandis left DSM and set up on his own, allegedly poached staff and he and Mikey D have been at loggerheads ever since. IIRC Mike D referred to him in his "Christmas special" interviews.

[pauld]

My very rough grasp is that Diamandis claimed and won damages due to Prescott poaching customers and staff after Dunwoody went insolvant.

Prescott argued that Dunwoody was no more and Diamandis was banned as a director technically he did no wrong.

Judge awarded Mike 60 odd k.

Erm, you've got that a bit backwards Dazza insofar as what this document pertains to - the link you cite is a summary of Nick Prescott's successful appeal against the orginal damages award against him. The outcome is that some of the damages stand, some have been struck out.

Gotcha and cheers, t'was more of a sweaty grope  than a rough grasp then.  

Fair dos, though, I'd take a sweaty grope over a rough grasp any day of the week  

[thedarkprince]

I thought old "Two Jags" was gonna be throwing some hooks and jabs at Diamond Mike  

[pauld]

Explains why Dunwoody became Pia all of a sudden and turned insolvant.

And while I'm in a correcting mood, no not really. Dunwoody started out as PIA, then became Dunwoody when Richard Dunwoody got back involved. Since then the various PIA/Dunwoody incarnations (there's about half a dozen at the moment) regularly undergo name changes, are reformed, go into administration (under the kind auspices of Mr Andronikou, natch) etc etc. Quite why anyone would wish to employ this particular business strategy when they have such a vibrant brand is puzzling but they do seem to struggle with unpaid bills from time to time so it must be a little frustrating for their creditors trying to keep track. In fact, it would appear from Para 11 of the judgement that it hasn't always been easy for DSM/PIA and their lawyers to keep track either:

The transfer agreement gives the name of the Company as PIA Advertising and Marketing Ltd, but at that date PIA Advertising and Marketing Ltd was the name of company 05301921, which had been incorporated on December 1, 2004 as Dunwoody Marketing Communications Ltd and changed its name to PIA Advertising and Marketing Ltd on June 29, 2005.

[ronnie21]

Congrats to Dazza for finding it and to anybody who has actually read through it.  Does this actually have any bearing on STFC and Diamandis?

[ahounsell]

Mr David Cavender (instructed by Boodle Hatfield) for the Respondent

Boodle Hatfield nominees are listed as a substantial shareholder in the Football clubs parent company.

Its not proof, but a pretty big clue as to who actually controls those shares.

[RobertT]

Mr David Cavender (instructed by Boodle Hatfield) for the Respondent

Boodle Hatfield nominees are listed as a substantial shareholder in the Football clubs parent company.

Its not proof, but a pretty big clue as to who actually controls those shares.

Well spotted, I just scan read the whole ruddy thing and missed that completely.

It goes to show how bloody irritating it must be to deal with them as a company.  How can you forget you already run a company with the same name