Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

I think the law is that the courts need to approve the sale / transfer; as a legal process, due to the companies being in admin.
so it may not be the shares and 'freezer' test as such, but I still assume the courts need to approve the sale (i.e. the CVA) that occurred, which may not happen until the sale & purchase agreement is done,

I was looking back a few pages but can't find the lithuanian law but it was clear the courts have to approve the decisions, which makes sense really, question is how and when that happens.

Also I noticed, whilst hunting for that link to the lith.law, Desantos / sanger is gone from here. Was he an undercover yam or what?

I'm 99.9999% sure the Yams are going to exit admin and be fine, but part of me hopes the courts do need to ratify the decision and that this and/or the sale and purchase agreement, drags on a while yet. Then cash comes awfully tight again, whilst the risk of being still in admin come the new season could be a reality.

found it, in bold?

Article 16. The Procedure for Adopting and Approving
Settlements

A settlement shall be deemed concluded when it has been
approved at the creditors' meeting by all of the creditors whose
claims are not secured by mortgage.

- settlement may not be concluded if the court has
established a fraudulent bankruptcy.

Creditors shall have the right to appeal to court to declare
a settlement invalid if they believe that it was concluded in
violation of the requirements of the law, or of their rights or
interests which are protected by law.

- settlements shall become effective upon its approval by
the court. In the event that a settlement is concluded during the
implementation of extrajudicial bankruptcy procedure, it must
also be approved in court.


full insolvency law:

http://www.litlex.lt/Litlex/eng/Fram...cuments/21.HTM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juice-Terry

A while ago someone suggested there is a significant difference between the Portsmouth case and the Hertz one. It was suggested that Romanov's shares were frozen at the request of UKIO or UBIG and not by the court. The implication being that UKIO/UBIG can unfreeze the shares whenever they want to (or petition the court to do so anyway). I hope this is not so, obviously.

---

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-s-assets.html

The UBIG assets were frozen by the Court after action raised by creditors of Vlad and his sister.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craig_in_Prague

found it, in bold?

Article 16. The Procedure for Adopting and Approving
Settlements

A settlement shall be deemed concluded when it has been
approved at the creditors' meeting by all of the creditors whose
claims are not secured by mortgage.

- settlement may not be concluded if the court has
established a fraudulent bankruptcy.

Creditors shall have the right to appeal to court to declare
a settlement invalid if they believe that it was concluded in
violation of the requirements of the law, or of their rights or
interests which are protected by law.

- settlements shall become effective upon its approval by
the court. In the event that a settlement is concluded during the
implementation of extrajudicial bankruptcy procedure, it must
also be approved in court.


full insolvency law:

http://www.litlex.lt/Litlex/eng/Fram...cuments/21.HTM

---

I wonder if the delays / silence could be the result of actions by the Lithuanian criminal justice system.

Now that could be some delay. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-s-assets.html

The UBIG assets were frozen by the Court after action raised by creditors of Vlad and his sister.

---

Sorry, I menat UBIG and UKIO's creditors. But if that's so, then one would expect that those same creditors could petition the court and easily have them unfrozen again (or at least have the relatively unproblematic shares unforzen).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

I wonder if the delays / silence could be the result of actions by the Lithuanian criminal justice system.

Now that could be some delay. :greengrin

---

What delays? Last time Bryan Jackson was quoted he said he expected Hearts to be out of administration in June. It looks on course does it not!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

What delays? Last time Bryan Jackson was quoted he said he expected Hearts to be out of administration in June. It looks on course does it not!

---

What delays ??? .... if the Criminal Justice system gets involved I think we are talking years !

Unfortunately, the Lith. plods have not shown any interest in Yam shares so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craig_in_Prague

Also I noticed, whilst hunting for that link to the lith.law, Desantos / sanger is gone from here. Was he an undercover yam or what?

---

Quite a few of the threads main characters have become conspicuous by there absence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HUTCHYHIBBY

Quite a few of the threads main characters have become conspicuous by there absence.

---

its holiday season,they'll be back :agree:
still a few hurdles,hoops and spins for the yams to negotiate :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HUTCHYHIBBY

Quite a few of the threads main characters have become conspicuous by there absence.

---

Most of them probably feel that there is not much to talk about now that they are safe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juice-Terry

A while ago someone suggested there is a significant difference between the Portsmouth case and the Hertz one. It was suggested that Romanov's shares were frozen at the request of UKIO or UBIG and not by the court. The implication being that UKIO/UBIG can unfreeze the shares whenever they want to (or petition the court to do so anyway). I hope this is not so, obviously.

---

UBIG's shares in HMFC were frozen along with UBIG's other assets at a time when Romanov still controlled UBIG. This was done to protect UBIG's creditors from Vlad getting up to asset disposal jiggery pokery. The question is whether UBIG's creditors having agreed the deal is effectively the microwave they need. The generally positive Jackson/Budgie noises would suggest it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HUTCHYHIBBY

Quite a few of the threads main characters have become conspicuous by there absence.

---

Desantos thought we wouldn't notice if he changed his username and started talking about himself.

I'm still here but there isn't much to add beyond what I said a few days ago. The short version is the only people who can mess this up for Hearts now are Hearts themselves.

Looking to understand why ukio/ubig would be handled differently from snoras (Portsmouth fc owners) whose shares remain frozen to this day.

Is there a difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Springbank

Looking to understand why ukio/ubig would be handled differently from snoras (Portsmouth fc owners) whose shares remain frozen to this day.

Is there a difference?

---

There appears to be but we don't know what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Springbank

Looking to understand why ukio/ubig would be handled differently from snoras (Portsmouth fc owners) whose shares remain frozen to this day.

Is there a difference?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

There appears to be but we don't know what.

---

There may well be a difference, but do Portsmouth need these shares any more?............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Springbank

Looking to understand why ukio/ubig would be handled differently from snoras (Portsmouth fc owners) whose shares remain frozen to this day.

Is there a difference?

---

It may be as simple as nobody wanted to buy them once BDO decided not to wait and push ahead with a business and assets sale to newco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeithenHibby

There may well be a difference, but do Portsmouth need these shares any more?............

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

It may be as simple as nobody wanted to buy them once BDO decided not to wait and push ahead with a business and assets sale to newco.

---

:top marks

Why would they remain frozen by the courts in snoras' case but not in ubig's?

Both form part of criminal investigations that are, on the surface, fairly similar...dodgy international financial transactions involving laughably compliant rubber-sphynctered football clubs in the uk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Springbank

Why would they remain frozen by the courts in snoras' case but not in ubig's?

Both form part of criminal investigations that are, on the surface, fairly similar...dodgy international financial transactions involving laughably compliant rubber-sphynctered football clubs in the uk

---

See above. Nobody is trying to get the Portsmouth shares unfrozen any more. They could be unfrozen for all we know but there's no interest in them because they are useless now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bajillions

See above. Nobody is trying to get the Portsmouth shares unfrozen any more. They could be unfrozen for all we know but there's no interest in them because they are useless now.

---

Still a wee bit confused tho. Didnt BDO try unsuccessfuly to get them for Portsmouth before going a different route.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bajillions

See above. Nobody is trying to get the Portsmouth shares unfrozen any more. They could be unfrozen for all we know but there's no interest in them because they are useless now.

---

Looking at the details ,they did not try to hard to get the shares.

Portsmouth 2010 F C. had CVA approved by creditors on 12/6/2012.

Moved to voluntary liquidation on 28/8/2012.

No need to fight for the shares the way the English system works, but I dare say the admins. had to go through the process to earn their fat wedge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Looking at the details ,they did not try to hard to get the shares.

Portsmouth 2010 F C. had CVA approved by creditors on 12/6/2012.

Moved to voluntary liquidation on 28/8/2012.

No need to fight for the shares the way the English system works, but I dare say the admins. had to go through the process to earn their fat wedge.

---

That's it exactly. The English system meant getting the shares wasn't as vital as it was for Hearts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-s-assets.html

The UBIG assets were frozen by the Court after action raised by creditors of Vlad and his sister.

---

Is this the sister that holds 15% of hertz shares?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glesgahibby

Is this the sister that holds 15% of hertz shares?

---

I think it's her daughter's company which could be offered a token amount along the lines of UBIG simply to remove the last link to Romanov. Those shares will have little value as the holding is minor compared to the 79% that Budge will own and so have effectively no power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eyrie

I think it's her daughter's company which could be offered a token amount along the lines of UBIG simply to remove the last link to Romanov. Those shares will have little value as the holding is minor compared to the 79% that Budge will own and so have effectively no power.

---

General question.

Why is it not as important to get sisters shares?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eyrie

I think it's her daughter's company which could be offered a token amount along the lines of UBIG simply to remove the last link to Romanov. Those shares will have little value as the holding is minor compared to the 79% that Budge will own and so have effectively no power.

---

I don't think she would accept a token amount unless she is really short of cash.

If the new Yam model gets up and running and the fannies keep pouring their cash into the Company, then a 15 % holding might be worth quite a bit to some ambitious Yam wanting to be seen as the largest minority shareholder .

The holding would not get him any power at the PBS but it might earn him a parking space for his Rover on match days and his maroon cardigan will recognised in Gorgie. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Looking at the details ,they did not try to hard to get the shares.

Portsmouth 2010 F C. had CVA approved by creditors on 12/6/2012.

Moved to voluntary liquidation on 28/8/2012.

No need to fight for the shares the way the English system works, but I dare say the admins. had to go through the process to earn their fat wedge.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bajillions

That's it exactly. The English system meant getting the shares wasn't as vital as it was for Hearts.

---

So for Hearts then the shares are vital? The courts really do have to sanction their release so they don't end up being liquidated in the bottom tier? I wonder why they didn't try too hard in Portsmouths case? Probably because they didn't need to as they wouldn't have to apply to the league to re join. I really do hope Hearts have a hard time trying to release them. Its the least they deserve.

They'll be fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glory Lurker

They'll be fine.

---

Who'll be alright?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrSmith

Who'll be alright?

---

The Yams. I don't think there's anything left to see here.