Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

How many peeps who run up huge debts like him actually are prosecuted? Presumably in most cases there would have been a point beyond which they shouldn't have run up any more, but do. Many prosecuted?

---

But if someone on benefits does a few jobs on the side to feed their family, buy their kids christmas presents or whatever there is absolutely no doubt that they will be prosecuted. None whatsoever. And if its proved they have benefitted by more than £3000 they will go to jail.

Oldhun collect VAT from customers to the tune of £14m which they do not pass over to the exchequer and zippo happens. The dive for the cover of administration and they all walk away. The administrators then sell property valued in their books at £100m+ for £1.5m which is then revalued by Newhun weeks later at £40m and everythings fine and legal. So it is. Jobs a good un.

Edit; It was actually valued at £40m "on acquisition" with further "intangibles" valued at £19m "on acquisition".

Im going to move to North Korea where everything is fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

How many peeps who run up huge debts like him actually are prosecuted? Presumably in most cases there would have been a point beyond which they shouldn't have run up any more, but do. Many prosecuted?

There's a widespread perception that peeps do get away with things they shouldn't. The the huns is just a particularly flagrant example.

On the question of whether throwing peeps in workhouses would dampen the country's entrepreneurial spirit, it might well. So what? How much worse off would the country be with Murray, Whyte, Goodwin (and many, many others) sewing mailbags? :dunno:

---

What is this obsession with prosecution of people in debt. What evidence do you have to suggest that he did anything wrong let alone anything criminal? If every businessman who went bust was prosecuted nobody would go into business.

Having worked in insolvency in the 90s i dealt with a lot of people who victims of circumstances and a few who were 'at it'. A classic example of the domino effect is what happened in North Lanarkshire. Ravenscraig was the major employer for the whole area, it provided the mojority of the domestic money, almost every other business in N Lanarks depended on that income to survive. When Ravenscraig went the knock on impact on all the small businesses was huge, butchers, hairdressers, window cleaners, plumbers all went to wall. That increased the unemployement queue which multiplied the effect. The only people making money were the insolvency administrators.

Strangely enough we are in the middle of a huge recession and people are going bankrupt, companies are going into administration and some are being liquidated. That's what happens unfortunately in a recession. And, perish the thought, but perhaps that is what happened to O'Leary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Falcon

But if someone on benefits does a few jobs on the side to feed their family, buy their kids christmas presents or whatever there is absolutely no doubt that they will be prosecuted. None whatsoever. And if its proved they have benefitted by more than £3000 they will go to jail.

Oldhun collect VAT from customers to the tune of £14m which they do not pass over to the exchequer and zippo happens. The dive for the cover of administration and they all walk away. The administrators then sell property valued in their books at £100m+ for £1.5m which is then revalued by Newhun weeks later at £40m and everythings fine and legal. So it is. Jobs a good un.

Edit; It was actually valued at £40m "on acquisition" with further "intangibles" valued at £19m "on acquisition".

---

It's not, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by proud_and_green

What is this obsession with prosecution of people in debt. What evidence do you have to suggest that he did anything wrong let alone anything criminal? If every businessman who went bust was prosecuted nobody would go into business.

---

I didn't say I wanted peeps prosecuted. I said some of them should be in a workhouse. For less obvious scammers than Murray, Whyte, Green, etc, a spell in the stocks would be adequate. Rescinding a knighthood doesn't necessarily cut it for me.

You miss the point where you ask whether O'Leary did anything criminal. What some peeps on this thread are arguing is that the law is far too lenient, and encourages financial misbehaviour.

If everyone who got into debt was required, by law, to eventually pay it back there would still be business. It would probably be conducted in a different way though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

I didn't say I wanted peeps prosecuted. I said some of them should be in a workhouse. For less obvious scammers than Murray, Whyte, Green, etc, a spell in the stocks would be adequate. Rescinding a knighthood doesn't necessarily cut it for me.

You miss the point where you ask whether O'Leary did anything criminal. What some peeps on this thread are arguing is that the law is far too lenient, and encourages financial misbehaviour.

If everyone who got into debt was required, by law, to eventually pay it back there would still be business. It would probably be conducted in a different way though.

---

The law doesn't encourage financial misbehaviour, it is actually quite clear about what is right and what is not. The point is where do you draw the line between a business which finds that, for what ever reason, can no longer repay its debts. All businesses run with debt at some point, good businesses have plans for ensuring that they live within their means and plan the repayment of those loans, others ever extend and others still have plans for the repayment but then extenal circumstances mean they cannot follow through onntheir plans. The mistake that many businesses make is trying to keep going for too long with the result that the business incurs greater debts. This is often because the partners/directors etc have so much riding on the success including their own homes and they want it to succeed to the point that their glass is half full rather than half empty.

Bankruptcy laws aim to make the individual repay the debt from their assets and often include personal contributions for the duration of the bankruptcy. But another aim of banruptcy is to give people some light at the end of the tunnel, meaning they can and are encouraged to be useful contributors to the economy.

On the criminal side. There are a range of offences which an insolvency practitioner can report a debtor for and often do and they work with the various agencies to ensure that those who are 'at it' do not get away with 'it'. Similarly criminal procedings can be taken against the directors of a company and often are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by proud_and_green

The law doesn't encourage financial misbehaviour, it is actually quite clear about what is right and what is not. The point is where do you draw the line between a business which finds that, for what ever reason, can no longer repay its debts. All businesses run with debt at some point, good businesses have plans for ensuring that they live within their means and plan the repayment of those loans, others ever extend and others still have plans for the repayment but then extenal circumstances mean they cannot follow through onntheir plans. The mistake that many businesses make is trying to keep going for too long with the result that the business incurs greater debts. This is often because the partners/directors etc have so much riding on the success including their own homes and they want it to succeed to the point that their glass is half full rather than half empty.

Bankruptcy laws aim to make the individual repay the debt from their assets and often include personal contributions for the duration of the bankruptcy. But another aim of banruptcy is to give people some light at the end of the tunnel, meaning they can and are encouraged to be useful contributors to the economy.

On the criminal side. There are a range of offences which an insolvency practitioner can report a debtor for and often do and they work with the various agencies to ensure that those who are 'at it' do not get away with 'it'. Similarly criminal procedings can be taken against the directors of a company and often are.

---

Yes you're stating what is the case and that it's basically fine and dandy. Not everyone agrees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Yes you're stating what is the case and that it's basically fine and dandy. Not everyone agrees.

---

I don't think anyone is saying that the law is fine. No law is perfect, and there are always ways of playing the system to minimise their effects.

There will be better brains than ours working on improvements to insolvency law, I am sure, but thus far this is what we have. What is good, IMO, is that the publicity on the Rangers and Hearts cases has brought things to public attention in a way that wouldn't have happened otherwise. That has provoked debate, which is always good, and it may also speed up reform, if that is what is needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I don't think anyone is saying that the law is fine. No law is perfect, and there are always ways of playing the system to minimise their effects.

There will be better brains than ours working on improvements to insolvency law, I am sure, but thus far this is what we have. What is good, IMO, is that the publicity on the Rangers and Hearts cases has brought things to public attention in a way that wouldn't have happened otherwise. That has provoked debate, which is always good, and it may also speed up reform, if that is what is needed.

---

Probably true but my thoughts are based on about twenty years of this scene being repeated every few months in exactly the same way, so I don't think any immensely large brains have been working on things in the background:

(1) Letter comes through the door advising that company X is busted and insolvency practitioners Y have been appointed.

(2) A whole lot more letters come through the door, many advising how the insolvency practitioners' fees are racking up.

(3) A final letter comes through the door advising that company X had assets A and liabilities B, that the insolvency practitioners' fees will be A minus tuppence and that there will be no dividend to ordinary creditors.

(4) A bit later, you hear in the pub that the peeps who ran company X are now trading as company Z. You do not hear in the pub that the peeps running company Z are determined to devote a percentage of their profits to repaying the creditors of company X.

The whole process in my experience serves mainly to provide a living for insolvency practitioners.

Unsatisfactory!

Are they bankrupt yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swedish hibee

Are they bankrupt yet?

---

Thank goodness, back on topic :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

It's not, though.

---

But there will be very little, if any, consequences to their actions. BDO may have something to say but in reality they make a comeent or two, D+P may get a little slap on the wrists (metaphorically speaking) but nothing of any significance will happen. The job is done and the sting is complete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swedish hibee

Are they bankrupt yet?

---

Morally? Yes
Financially? Almost

Can O'Leary be charged with fraudulently taking over the 'Yams are going bust' thread ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seveno

Can O'Leary be charged with fraudulently taking over the 'Yams are going bust' thread ?

---

His wife would take the rap.

(I keep wanting to type Pee-nis O'Leary, but the swear filter won't let me. Have we come to this, when fundamental organs of human existence are proscribed by the admin pricks? :greengrin)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keekaboo

To be honest, that is pathetic.

I normally enjoy what you write but you appear to me to be trying to defend the indefensible. You've failed miserably

---

Is there really any need for that? He's telling us how things work, not giving an opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey

Is there really any need for that? He's telling us how things work, not giving an opinion.

---

Aye perhaps, but why cant he tell us what we all want to hear? :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

Aye perhaps, but why cant he tell us what we all want to hear? :greengrin

---

You are a lean mean love machine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucius Apuleius

You are a lean mean love machine.

---

Funny you should say that, because you are the 4th person to do so this week. :faf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bajillions

Morally? Yes
Financially? Almost

---

Can someone "in the know" not just gie us the news we have been waiting for....that's it folks they are broon breed, kaput, finito, The pink wonga dome is being turned into an air raid shelter. Cant trust them Koreans now can we ?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

Funny you should say that, because you are the 4th person to do so this week. :faf:

---

Aye, but the previous 3 were all on Monday :wink:

This thread will still be going in 5 years time with people asking if they are dead yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibercelona

This thread will still be going in 5 years time with people asking if they are dead yet.

---

I think we should be flattered if people are asking the question on here rather than through MSM.

Simple question here..

Why hasn't there been one peep out of the media (TV or newspapers) about any of the talk that goes on in this section?

The media love a story like this but so far apart from a brief moment of hope regarding administration there has been not one word said.

Just askin like.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey

Aye, but the previous 3 were all on Monday :wink:

---

Yip and one was a woman. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HIBERNIAN-0762

Simple question here..

Why hasn't there been one peep out of the media (TV or newspapers) about any of the talk that goes on in this section?

The media love a story like this but so far apart from a brief moment of hope regarding administration there has been not one word said.

Just askin like.....

---

Cos the media read the Private Members' Forum. That's where the real stories are. :greengrin

Seriously, the media don't respect these types of fora as much as they should. For them, we are full of gossip and rumour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibercelona

This thread will still be going in 5 years time with people asking if they are dead yet.

---

I just googled Are Hearts dead? Actually I googled are Zombies dead? and got

they are undead. They were once alive people . They died, and became a mobile dead body through a virus, disease, fungus, parasite or something else.

Replace parasite with Vlad and thats good enough for me. In fact do you need to make any changes?

This answers the often repeated question are they dead? No they are undead..people who were once alive but became infected.
To be fair to Zombies the yams have poorer dress sense, use fewer skin care products, are less co-ordinated, dont have their personal hygiene issues as sorted and look in two different directions at the same time. On a positive note our deluded friends have solved the problem of what do charities do with donated clothes that sub saharan tribesmen and Albanian travellers consider to be a bit naff and like the zombies and the daleks, they have contributed to an endless supply of u tube clips of them trying to unsuccessfully navigate stairs. I am sure I have seen more than one of the undead at the Wongadome.:agree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

Yip and one was a woman. :wink:

---

And one was a guy :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser1962

And one was a guy :wink:

---

So its out then, you know Boltonhibs. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

So its out then, you know Boltonhibs. :greengrin

---

that would be the third one that wasnt a woman or a guy..........:greengrin