WH SPORTS LTD

Am I right in saying that a liquidator can apply for a director to be disqualified of any company if he knew that a company was trading while insolvent?

DTI and other investigations into shall we say inproper activites?

DTI and other investigations into shall we say inproper activites?

other investigations? are you referring to insolvency service?

DTI and other investigations into shall we say inproper activites?

i wonder if the hmrc are aware that the "worthless" asset is now being hawked for 2 million.

tony the stadium completion bonus was above and beyond the owed monies to the tax man(allegedly)
why dident it gaid paid then

I can't remember what PR said the stadium completion bonus was, although I vaguely remember something about £600,000????

Firstly was it in cash or shares?

Also if the debt didn't have to be paid off until April 2010 and I had £409,000 (that's the amount owed by W H Sports source publicy avialable documents and I have copies) to pay it off, I would do it on the very last day so that I collect the maximum amount of interest possible.

The revenue charge a high rate of interest too, so in the current financial climate and with interest rates at their lowest except the revenues penalty interest rates, that would not be plausible.

Tony I think you may be missing something here, why is he required to pay it back anyway? The Company is in liquidation. Companies in genral liquidation are not required to repay by set dates.

What will be the case to the Directors of WH Sports in the event they do not meet the 2010 April deadline? I think you may well find its the date he has to stand down as a Director of the Cardiff City Companies he is involved in due to malpractice unless all payment is received.

I'm absolutely sure there is no penalty charges or interest on any debts owed (even those to HMRC) once a company is in liquidation. The debt figure is £409,000 it does-not increase.

The winding up is definately a voluntary liquidation although from the paperwork the debts (£409,000) far out weigh the assets (£22,000). I believe in such circumstances the liquidation becomes a Complusary Voluntary Liquidation.

However, you do raise a good point about why he would want to repay this money if he doesn't have to. The Liquidator does have to assess if a company director is guilty of misconduct having caused prejudice to creditors through wrongful or fraudulent trading.

Obviously there is no evidence to suggest that Ridsdale has done so certainly if the debts are settled.

tony

keith was at the muni meeting and brought this up with pr.
his 500k of city shares were in wh sports and were bought for the sum of 20k just before liquidation
pr said there is an agreement in place for when the shares are sold with hmrc
about 250 witnesses to this at the timwe

tony

keith was at the muni meeting and brought this up with pr.
his 500k of city shares were in wh sports and were bought for the sum of 20k just before liquidation
pr said there is an agreement in place for when the shares are sold with hmrc
about 250 witnesses to this at the timwe

Yes I was there and I remember that.

And there lies the question was it misconduct to transfer shares valued at 2 million for £20,000 prior to liquidation? Was it fradulent trading? did it cause prejudice to creditors , the main one being the revenue? and what action unless repaid do you think will be taken by the DTI in the event of non repayment. Ridsdale claimed publicly " all be repaid by Christmas" , that was not the case, why claim it so? The noose is getting tighter.

And there lies the question was it misconduct to transfer shares valued at 2 million for £20,000 prior to liquidation? Was it fradulent trading? did it cause prejudice to creditors , the main one being the revenue? and what action unless repaid do you think will be taken by the DTI in the event of non repayment. Ridsdale claimed publicly " all be repaid by Christmas" , that was not the case, why claim it so? The noose is getting tighter.

If these are the shares he took as his "bonus", they were worth £500k at the time. As a shareholder myself, I'd like to think that mine have quadrupled in value but at the present time, I can't quite see it . I'll just be grateful if we can avoid Admin and I lose the lot.

If what is alleged with WH Sports happened, I'm surprised that the principal isn't following Mandaric into court. Seems like he was dealt with very leniently indeed if it's just a slap on the wrist and pay the tax when you can afford it. I wish HMRC were so understanding when it comes to my tax affairs. Let's hope all the chickens come home to roost.

And there lies the question was it misconduct to transfer shares valued at 2 million for £20,000 prior to liquidation? Was it fradulent trading? did it cause prejudice to creditors , the main one being the revenue? and what action unless repaid do you think will be taken by the DTI in the event of non repayment. Ridsdale claimed publicly " all be repaid by Christmas" , that was not the case, why claim it so? The noose is getting tighter.

I would imagine there would be questions to be answered if the debt were not repaid.

However, my understanding is if the shares were sold at 41p each Ridsdale would receive nearly £2m. I assume there would be capital gains tax to pay, but the remainder should be enough to pay off all creditors easily.

Should all debts get paid then it is hard to see how the liquidator could make out a case of misconduct against Ridsdale?

And there lies the question was it misconduct to transfer shares valued at 2 million for £20,000 prior to liquidation? Was it fradulent trading? did it cause prejudice to creditors , the main one being the revenue? and what action unless repaid do you think will be taken by the DTI in the event of non repayment. Ridsdale claimed publicly " all be repaid by Christmas" , that was not the case, why claim it so? The noose is getting tighter.

I would imagine there would be questions to be answered if the debt were not repaid.

However, my understanding is if the shares were sold at 41p each Ridsdale would receive nearly £2m. I assume there would be capital gains tax to pay, but the remainder should be enough to pay off all creditors easily.

Should all debts get paid then it is hard to see how the liquidator could make out a case of misconduct against Ridsdale?

Tony

no chance of 41p would be lucky to get 15p but it was the legality of the transferring of shares that is in question here.
hmrc chasing tax ni etc so said company gets liquidated but not before major asset is sold of to same director for a song

Tony

no chance of 41p would be lucky to get 15p but it was the legality of the transferring of shares that is in question here.
hmrc chasing tax ni etc so said company gets liquidated but not before major asset is sold of to same director for a song

Steve,

I can see that and it's a very good point. I'm just putting an alternative view I assume Ridsdale would answer with which may or may not be right.

Tony

no chance of 41p would be lucky to get 15p but it was the legality of the transferring of shares that is in question here.
hmrc chasing tax ni etc so said company gets liquidated but not before major asset is sold of to same director for a song

Steve,

I can see that and it's a very good point. I'm just putting an alternative view I assume Ridsdale would answer with which may or may not be right.

Another view is tony if your asked about said transaction and you describe the shares as worthless. when you found trying to get 2 million for them dont you think thats going to bring attention to yourself(allegedly)

Another view is tony if your asked about said transaction and you describe the shares as worthless. when you found trying to get 2 million for them dont you think thats going to bring attention to yourself(allegedly)

Steve, at first sight it would seem an extremely 'dodgy' practise.

Of course I'm guessing at TNT's point, but it seems to be that PR has developed an urge to pay the HMRC & other creditors because if he didn’t the DTI could disqualify him from any directorship due to the way he obtained the shares from his liquidated company.

That might or might not be true but the fact is if he does pay off the debts then he is highly unlikely to face any sanctions as he wouldn’t have defrauded anyone as all debts are satisfied.

What his intention was prior to the NOTW story/Since 62' revelations will be open to debate.

Last edited by Tony Blue Williams on Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.

in plain englsh?

Has W H Sports been liquidated or is it subject to CVAs perhaps?

Has W H Sports been liquidated or is it subject to CVAs perhaps?

Insolvent liquidation (CVL) April last year. No CVL .

If, as alledged, Ridsdale has sold shares owned by WH Sports Ltd to himself at an undervalue, am i right in saying that

(1) the liquidators of WH Sports Ltd may apply to the court for an order to set aside the transaction, if at the time of the transaction WH Sports Limited was then (or as a result of the transaction became) unable to pay its debts as they fell due. (Section 238 Insolvency Act 1986)

(2) Also as a creditor of WH Sports Ltd and the victim of the alledged transaction at an undervalue, HMRC may apply to the court for an order to set aside any transactions made at an undervalue or an order (Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986)

(3) The liquidator or any creditor or (with the consent of the court) any shareholder can apply to the court for an examination of his conduct as a director who may have alledgedly misapplied money or property of a company or been guilty of misfeasance or breach of duty in relation to the company. The court may compel Ridsdale to repay, restore or account for the money or property or to pay compensation.

(4) Ridsdale could face disqualification as a director The Company Directors Disqualification Act sets out the following criteria for the court to consider in determining whether a person is unfit to be a director:

(a) misfeasance or breach of any fiduciary or other duty;
(b) misapplication or retention of assets;
(c) involvement in transactions of defrauding creditors;
(d) failure to comply with the statutory requirements relating to books, records, returns and accounts;
(e) the causes of the insolvency;
(f) the company’s failure to supply any goods or services which have been partly or fully paid for;
(g) any transaction at an undervalue or preference that can be set aside; and
(h) failure to comply with the statutory obligations in insolvency (calling a meeting of creditors, statement of affairs, delivery of property and co-operation with officeholder etc).

The alledged transacton appears to fall into criteria (C) and (g)at the very least. I guess the liquidator will make any recomendations for prosecution in his report.

All of this is based on alledged information of course

If, as alledged, Ridsdale has sold shares owned by WH Sports Ltd to himself at an undervalue, am i right in saying that

(1) the liquidators of WH Sports Ltd may apply to the court for an order to set aside the transaction, if at the time of the transaction WH Sports Limited was then (or as a result of the transaction became) unable to pay its debts as they fell due. (Section 238 Insolvency Act 1986)

(2) Also as a creditor of WH Sports Ltd and the victim of the alledged transaction at an undervalue, HMRC may apply to the court for an order to set aside any transactions made at an undervalue or an order (Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986)

(3) The liquidator or any creditor or (with the consent of the court) any shareholder can apply to the court for an examination of his conduct as a director who may have alledgedly misapplied money or property of a company or been guilty of misfeasance or breach of duty in relation to the company. The court may compel Ridsdale to repay, restore or account for the money or property or to pay compensation.

(4) Ridsdale could face disqualification as a director The Company Directors Disqualification Act sets out the following criteria for the court to consider in determining whether a person is unfit to be a director:

(a) misfeasance or breach of any fiduciary or other duty;
(b) misapplication or retention of assets;
(c) involvement in transactions of defrauding creditors;
(d) failure to comply with the statutory requirements relating to books, records, returns and accounts;
(e) the causes of the insolvency;
(f) the company’s failure to supply any goods or services which have been partly or fully paid for;
(g) any transaction at an undervalue or preference that can be set aside; and
(h) failure to comply with the statutory obligations in insolvency (calling a meeting of creditors, statement of affairs, delivery of property and co-operation with officeholder etc).

The alledged transacton appears to fall into criteria (C) and (g)at the very least. I guess the liquidator will make any recomendations for prosecution in his report.

All of this is based on alledged information of course

peter

the accounts to 30/04/2007 show the shares quoted as an asset worth 500k
it shows creditors at an amazing 380k up some 225k from the previous year
at the end of that accounting period it shows reserves and shareholders funds of 147k.
so if you take those 500k shares out of the company and sell them to yourself for bladders you can see why the shit has hit the fan with his creditors and the hmrc.

IN plain english????

IN plain english????

this thread has cooked me


but thanks anyway i got the jist

IN plain english????

this thread has cooked me


but thanks anyway i got the jist

PR and this thread spinning me out

IN plain english????

this thread has cooked me


but thanks anyway i got the jist

which is? in a nut shell? to much technical jargon for me

IN plain english????

this thread has cooked me


but thanks anyway i got the jist

which is? in a nut shell? to much technical jargon for me

Suppose you were given some shares, say in a football club, as a bonus. If you kept them as an individual, you might be liable for a lot of income tax on that bonus 'cos let's suppose the shares were worth £500k. So to work around the tax liability, suppose you received those shares into a limited company you ran instead. Then later, suppose your company sold the shares back to you as an individual for say, £20k and then you closed the company down owing several hundred £k to the taxman. Of course, this is all a hypothetical example of what you could do but if you did do all that, it would be a bit naughty wouldn't it?

I would think unless you repaid your dues the Dti would investigate you and in probable strike you off as a Director of any existing and future Directorships.

I would think unless you repaid your dues the Dti would investigate you and in probable strike you off as a Director of any existing and future Directorships.

and if the time was now TNT? when would the DTI strike you off as a director ?

I think too that I would investigate that the said Consultant only dealt with the one Company and to which should have been an employee on that basis and the tax/ paye should have been extracted at the proper rate which would have avoided the current debt to the revenue. I think too as this was the second DTI Investigation in just a few years of said Director if I were to be the DTI, I would be investigating fully. How many times I would ask myself can Humpty Dumpty fall off the wall.

[/quote]

Suppose you were given some shares, say in a football club, as a bonus. If you kept them as an individual, you might be liable for a lot of income tax on that bonus 'cos let's suppose the shares were worth £500k. So to work around the tax liability, suppose you received those shares into a limited company you ran instead. Then later, suppose your company sold the shares back to you as an individual for say, £20k and then you closed the company down owing several hundred £k to the taxman. Of course, this is all a hypothetical example of what you could do but if you did do all that, it would be a bit naughty wouldn't it? [/quote]

at last, someone on my level... \dreamlike or Chic i mean, no PR of course

I would think unless you repaid your dues the Dti would investigate you and in probable strike you off as a Director of any existing and future Directorships.

and if the time was now TNT? when would the DTI strike you off as a director ?

Peter in public statements claimed he would repay all by Christmas 2009, that has not been the case. Reports state he has until 2010 before Humpty Dumpty has a great fall. Of course that leaves 4 months of income from your club which equates to £160,000 prior , hence why he clings to the wall, before the fall.

I would think unless you repaid your dues the Dti would investigate you and in probable strike you off as a Director of any existing and future Directorships.

and if the time was now TNT? when would the DTI strike you off as a director ?

Peter in public statements claimed he would repay all by Christmas 2009, that has not been the case. Reports state he has until 2010 before Humpty Dumpty has a great fall. Of course that leaves 4 months of income from your club which equates to £160,000 prior , hence why he clings to the wall, before the fall.

So in effect are you saying he is milking the club while he can before he is in the very near future in all likelyhood disqualified from future directorships and that this current situation is his attempt at prolonging this?