CVA Shambles

[BrightonRed]

Which leads to the biggest question of all really - why is Andronikou dragging this out? This should be sorted by now, with creditors simply awaiting their final payment in Aug/Sept.

Almost certainly because, like most offices that deal with insolvency at the moment, case progression is probably their lowest priority. Unfortunately there is a lot of money to be made in an economic climate such as ours and this is where they'll be pushing their resources. Evaluating a new, inflated creditor claim is a convenient excuse for them to put our CVA on the back-burner (and bump up their fees for that matter) whilst they concentrate on more profitable matters.

[pauld]

My final question for those with a smidgen of CVA proficiency is it possible to be a creditor, supplier, unofficial board member and shareholder (albeit through a proxy) in the holding company?  It all sounds a bit like a conflict of interest.

OK, so this boils down to the difference between connected and unconnected creditors. The Wills family, for example, are listed in the original CVA as creditors (because they are) but they do not share in the final distribution pot as they are connected creditors (because they were major shareholders at the time). Having a proxied shareholding in the old Holding Co is a red herring as it was set up after the period the CVA deals with (ie prior to 2002) Being a creditor and a supplier isn't a conflict of interest as that's usually how you get to be a creditor (ie by being a supplier who didn't get paid).

Where there is a potential to raise eyebrows is on the "shadow director" malarkey - if it were proven that Diamandis was effectively acting as a (shadow) director at the time then he would most likely be counted as a connected, not unconnected creditor, and hence would not be allowed to share in the final distribution pot. But if that were proven, then he'd have bigger problems than not getting an inflated share of the CVA payout as that would be an illegal violation of his DTI ban and he'd be looking at a hefty fine and/or jail time. So I'm quite sure that that couldn't possibly have been the case.

[Bogus Dave]

how do we know this is all diamandis, and not just the dunwoody company as a whole deciding this? or am i being thick

[pauld]

how do we know this is all diamandis, and not just the dunwoody company as a whole deciding this? or am i being thick

Dunwoody is Diamandis. There is no Bob Holt

[Phil_S]

Doesn't the CVA say somewhere that the supervisor has absolute discretion at rejecting later/late claims.  If this is correct surely all AA has to do is tell them where to get off. Mind you given the amount of work he has gotten from the financial genius, that would be a bit like asking turkeys to vote for Xmas.

[pauld]

Doesn't the CVA say somewhere that the supervisor has absolute discretion at rejecting later/late claims.  If this is correct surely all AA has to do is tell them where to get off. Mind you given the amount of work he has gotten from the financial genius, that would be a bit like asking turkeys to vote for Xmas.

Yes, it explicitly states a cut-off of Sept 2002 for claims to be submitted after which any claims will only be considered at the supervisor's discretion

[alanmayes]

I can't help but feel that this news about Dunwoody's increased claim, has come about as a result

of the delayed Bill Power court case.

In the Adver article, it states that there are calls for a new creditors meeting with Hacker Young,

who are reluctant to hold one.Is there a mechanism,that would force Hacker Young to do so?

[Dazzza]

OK, so this boils down to the difference between connected and unconnected creditors. The Wills family, for example, are listed in the original CVA as creditors (because they are) but they do not share in the final distribution pot as they are connected creditors (because they were major shareholders at the time). Having a proxied shareholding in the old Holding Co is a red herring as it was set up after the period the CVA deals with (ie prior to 2002) Being a creditor and a supplier isn't a conflict of interest as that's usually how you get to be a creditor (ie by being a supplier who didn't get paid).

Where there is a potential to raise eyebrows is on the "shadow director" malarkey - if it were proven that Diamandis was effectively acting as a (shadow) director at the time then he would most likely be counted as a connected, not unconnected creditor, and hence would not be allowed to share in the final distribution pot. But if that were proven, then he'd have bigger problems than not getting an inflated share of the CVA payout as that would be an illegal violation of his DTI ban and he'd be looking at a hefty fine and/or jail time. So I'm quite sure that that couldn't possibly have been the case.

You are a gentleman Paul D and I'll buy you a Kofte kebab for your trouble.

On the DTI case was there ever an official line drawn under the investigation?  It all went very quiet and then went off the radar.  

I presume they didn't find anything although it must always be a hard case to prove even when a lot of th signs are staring you in the face.

[pauld]

I can't help but feel that this news about Dunwoody's increased claim, has come about as a result

of the delayed Bill Power court case.

I think it's more a case of frustrated creditors determined not to be fobbed off, and to get answers from Hacker Young.

In the Adver article, it states that there are calls for a new creditors meeting with Hacker Young,

who are reluctant to hold one.Is there a mechanism,that would force Hacker Young to do so?

A very grey area. Technically Hacker Young are supposed to act in the creditors' interests, however in the circumstances where they do not deem it to be in the creditors' interests to convene such a meeting but the creditors rather fancy having one, it's not clear (at least to me) what the formal mechanisms are. I believe the creditors can in effect convene their own meeting without Hacker Young and even in extremis have them removed as supervisors, although I'm not sure what would constitute a valid quorum of creditors to do so (e.g. majority by value of all creditors or of unconnected creditors? Simple majority or threshold? etc) Of course it's also open to any creditor (or group of creditors) to go back to the courts and apply to have Hacker Young removed that way.

As I say, I don't know the exact mechanics. But I'm pretty sure that at least some of the creditors are in the process of finding out if they don't know already
[/quote]

[pauld]

You are a gentleman Paul D and I'll buy you a Kofte kebab for your trouble.

Could I opt for some form of houmous/pitta based alternative what with being a limp-wristed veggie and all? Or stuffed vine leaves maybe?

[alanmayes]

Paul,

Thanks for the summary.My feeling about the increased "claims" from Dunwoody/Diamandis in light of

Bill Power case,is that he has a history of taking advantage of "circumstances" that arise,that was all.

I can of course fully understand the frustrations of the creditors.My worry is that of HMRC (Biggest creditor)

and just hope that the outstanding debts can be paid asap.Obviously wishful thinking in this case.

[Dazzza]

Could I opt for some form of houmous/pitta based alternative what with being a limp-wristed veggie and all? Or stuffed vine leaves maybe?

Have they not made the greasy Quorn kebab yet?  I spy a gap in the market!

[Rich Pullen]

Hacker Young apologise for error
By Andy Cryer

SWINDON Town's administrators Hacker Young have apologised for an administration error that left creditors fearing the worst.

A claimants' list was sent out revealing Dunwoody had increased their initial Company Voluntary Arrangement claim from £11,000 to £750,000, but now admit an error on their system caused the confusion.

They can confirm Dunwoody have not increased their initial claim and apologise for any upset caused to creditors.

http://www.thisisswindontownfc.co.uk/display.var.2412236.0.hacker_young_apologise_for_error.php

Well, there we go.... 

[Dazzza]

A bit of fluff in a tea cup.  Ahh well made the day more interesting.

Perhaps the Adver should create a few more fictional headlines to make pre-season a little more interesting.

[Rich Pullen]

A bit of fluff in a tea cup.  Ahh well made the day more interesting.

Perhaps the Adver should create a few more fictional headlines to make pre-season a little more interesting.

You can't make it up can you!

I feel sorry for PaulD - so much explaining done.