Mark Humphries wrote: ================== > This is the point of debate, what the fuck IS exceptional if its not a > successful CVA challenged on a technicality by another creditor?
It is not a technicality. It is a matter of facts. Here is a carefully constructed explanation without any abuse or unsubstantiated bluster. I am always willing to give further explanation and I am willing to take on board constructive criticism. What I am not willing to enter into is ill-founded gainsay because of anyone's inability to take on board matters of fact. Now read on quietly and think before you jump to any response, the whole world is watching.................... A successful CVA, will be approved by the courts and only the courts, it is one whereby all creditors are dealt with on an equal basis (unless agreed otherwise by the creditors) and which is unchallenged. Because of the HMRC challenge KPMG do not believe they can produce a workable CVA so they are not progressing it. Whether this is because of the validity of any challenge or the more dubiously pitched lack of money to fund the club scenario is a moot point but the non progression is a fact. In the case of the Football Creditors being a preferred creditor and getting a 100% payment to satisfy League Rules, the only way a CVA can succeed without agreement of the creditors is if all other creditors get 100% (in which case the club has no reason to go into administration it should either continue trading, sell up or take the voluntary liquidation route). These are facts, known before administration was entered into by ALL football League clubs, They are, therefore, not exceptional by any measure of the FL's rules. Thunder, lightening, Munich Airport and lots of floodwater are what are in the minds of the League when it says exceptional (and no doubt the man un the upper deck of the number 19 bus on Putney bridge). In the case of HMRC its duty in law is to recover the maximum available to the Treasury from any CVA. On the basis that as HMRC is no longer a preferred creditor it looks for a workable CVA where all creditors get an equal percentage. In the case of all football club CVAs it will automatically ask that football creditors are paid the same as everybody else (as may any other creditor). This is clearly because football creditors being paid 100% of their debt immediately creates an unequal share for the remaining creditors. Again not an exceptional situation, just simple mathematics. Where a majority of creditors agree a 100% payment to football creditors, HMRC (or any other creditor) may challenge the CVA, on a legally determined basis, if they believe that decision to pay 100% was arrived at illegally. They believe this. The courts will determine the validity of this challenge unless HMRC withdraw their challenge. They will only withdraw if they believe the situation has materially changed so much that their challenge will fail or that the alleged illegal actions have been remedied to their satisfaction. They have not shown any indication of this as yet because they have not seen KPMG's response to the court. This is because KPMG have been given a timescale whereby they must answer to the HMRC allegations and HMRC then may respond to the KMPG answers. The court can then sit in judgement on the submissions of the two parties. I'm sure that these dates were published at the time but the 20th, 27th August and 3rd of September spring to mind. _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist Join The Leeds United Supporters Trust at www.lufctrust.org
