Podcast Episode 1


Allyjambo says: February 12, 2014 at 12:07 pm “I wouldn’t believe them …

Comment on Podcast Episode 1 by Campbellsmoney.

Allyjambo says:
February 12, 2014 at 12:07 pm
“I wouldn’t believe them if they told me today was Wednesday (it is Wednesday, isn’t it? ”
It depends where you are and where they are. Its Thursday here in Samoa.

Campbellsmoney Also Commented

Podcast Episode 1
Regarding arrestments

In order for an arrestment to have any point whatsoever, there has to be money , or a right to money.

Usually what is arrested is funds in a bank account, but technically, what an arrestment arrests is an “obligation to account”. That is because a bank account is actually an obligation, on the part of the bank, to account to its customer for the amount that is standing to credit in the account. But it doesn’t have to be a bank account that is arrested.

If Party A owes Party B £100 under a contract, then Party C can arrest that obligation to account “in the hands of Party A” as part of a court action where Party C is suing Party B.

Now, prior to yesterday was there an obligation to account for funds anywhere that was capable of being arrested?

Insolvency does things to arrestments. If an arrestment is put on in the period of 60 days prior to a liquidation, the arrestment is completely cut down and is of no effect. The position with administrations is not so clear. The moratorium in administration means that no-one may “commence or continue” legal process against a company in administration (without the consent of the administrator or leave of the court). Quite whether this means an arrestment must be released is not (so far as I am aware) certain as a matter of law. My feeling is that the better view is that such an arrestment would have to be released if placed in the period of 60 days prior to an administration.

Podcast Episode 1
Loan. Security. Arrestment. Coincidence?

Podcast Episode 1
In his latest blog, Phil says-

” Laxey Partners are now in pole position to be the secured creditors in any controlled insolvency.”

There we go again with “controlled insolvency”. Ah well.

Laxey are now secured creditors, as is Mr Easdale it seems (wonder if they have a ranking agreement?). But having a standard security over non-core assets (you can still play football without the car park and a neighbouring office block) securing a £1m loan, is a far cry from having a floating charge (with the attendant right to appoint an administrator) over the whole property and undertaking of a borrower.

So I don’t get what Phil means.

Recent Comments by Campbellsmoney

.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
I was in The 20 Horseshoe

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

I really can’t explain what you have asked with any certainty but here are some thoughts and comments.

We can’t be sure that the claim is by DK.

In a CVA, it is necessary to get 75% of creditors to vote in favour. But it is also necessary to get 50% of unconnected creditors to vote in favour. Directors claims will be treated as connected.

There is no reason why a creditor should not, if they want to, not claim in A CVA but later decide to submit a claim in the liquidation. It would be unusual but not prohibited.

As for how an investment in equity in one company can later become a claim to be a creditor in another company – that I simply cannot explain. I can only suggest that we do not have all the necessary facts.

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resinlabdog well said sir (or madam).

Anyone out there want to discuss what the phrase “sense of entitlement ” might mean when it is not being used about a team from Govan?

BigPink – :”phoenix” companies has no meaning in law. None whatsoever. So if Sir David Murray, Craig Whyte, John Greig, Bill Struth and Lawrence Marlborough all get appointed to the board of either of the companies currently trading as Rangers, it matters little. What do you think will (or perhaps should) “trigger “?

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

Are you Bob Crampsey? 🙂


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Regarding 216 again (sorry )

Even if Sevco had not changed its name, 216 would still apply because the company trades as Rangers. 216 strikes at trading names as well as company names.

Mr King has made great play today of how s216 is a little known piece of legislation. And how the old board have referred to it.

His intention in doing so is of course to suggest that but for the old board raising the issue, he would not have had to bother going through the court to get leave to be involved in a Rangers company.

Well funnily enough, the law applies whether or not anyone knows about it. In fact, if he didn’t know about it until the old board mentioned it he should perhaps say thank you.

About the author