That the trick, the examiner only needs the approval of one class of creditor is secured creditors, preferential creditors or unsecured creditors. you are an unssecured creditor and suffering because the examiner went to seek the approval of the preferential creditors. you can be sure the preferential creditors are getting a decent amount at your loss!
Nope the Examiner only needs the approval of one class of creditor.
Foxylady, by virutre of the amount you are talking about I guess we are dealing with the same examiner and company.
I am a trade creditor and it looks like heading for the High Court to discover and divulge the full depths of the money carousel that this company was involved in with its directors and associated companies.
As jack2009 says, our votes are irrelevant as both the banks and the revenue commissioners as secured creditors have accepted the proposal of the examiner. Although at the meeting today the revenue commissioner reacted to some of the questions posed by the trade creditors and hopefully a full revenue audit will occur.
The sad fact is that the judge does not really care about the unsecured creditors as long as they are getting payed something. The reason being that the examiner will be saying that what the creditors are getting under the proposed scheme is better than what they would be entiled to if to if the scheme fails.
I am not familiar with the case in question but very interested to learn more on Sconhome's comments regarding the "money carousel"!
Jack2009 -
The quite obvious situation which can only be alluded to with the use of the term 'alledged' is this:
The directors own a series of companies under a holding company which used company A to purchase the site, which contracted company B to develop the site and company C to engage a main contractor to build the houses.
Company C is in examinership having paid very few trade creditors, while company A & B retain their ownership and title of the land and properties.
Company C is also alleged to have conducted work for the directors at rates well below market cost resulting in a loss occuring which is subsidised by the trade creditors, bank and depositors on homes.
This money, in the region of €100m has been passed around the companies and is now hidden, the examiner, today had no knowledge of its whereabouts!!
This money has been redirected (alledgedly) from the people who are due payments and the 'downturn' is blamed for the loss of money. The money has skipped about in a manner that is not clear to the examiner, but it is no longer in the company C, that every person & business believed they were dealing with.
I would hope that you are contradicted in this case with your view on the judges. The blatant misrepresentations that occured here have to be dealt with, if not by the judge, cetainly by the ODCE and revenue commissioners.
Thanks for that Sconhome.
Sorry I do not mean to sound so negative towards the judge but really just trying to stress that the judge is not only interested the amounts due to creditors.
Sounds like a very interesting case, I really think that the Revenue Commissioners should step it up a gear! I am no tax expert but I do understand that these structures are common and that one of the main reasons for these structures is to avoid paying taxes. But to see the schemes to be used to avoid paying creditors is crazy."
If only there was someone out there with deep pockets to take a case against groups such as these.
If the law in this country wasnt so one sided, we wouldnt need deep pockets
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?