The crazy thing is, I made a valid and correct post which Oma challenged and got proven wrong. He then tried to jumble everything by going into technicalities which I have and he has no knowledge of, saying only secured on texas, admin, receivership, shareholder's approval bla bla and you turned around and said I jumbled it. Once again, go to my original post and OMA's response. That will settle it for you and I shall wait for an apology.
The fact remains aside all this distracting argument about technicalities, is that the RNS tells us this is in default. No one has been told what the default clauses are but we have been told Lind can call in the loan. If you don't know what that means when a loan gets called in and you can't pay, please research it.
Lind is a lender of last resort and if they haven't stitched up their loan agreement water tight, I would be flabbergasted. Once again, the RNS tells us that Lind can call in the loan for the full $7.25m. GO READ THE RNS PROPERLY.
Jeeesssus. How complicated to you want to make it?
Is this carve character linked to that share prophet website as his constant hammering of range is very similar to theirs...he sure as hell doesnt post for the benefit of the poor hard done by range shareholders. Takes the watching these type of people, can't be done with these characters.
I haven't jumbled up my points. I am only showing the liquidation information because Omadawn incorrectly said that voluntary winding up of a company does not require shareholder's approval. A distraction from the central point we were discussing. Item two shows it does.
Go back to my original post and see what I posted and how Oma responded. I said Lind can appoint receivers but OMA said only the BOD can. He has since been proven wrong along with other things (like voluntary winding up) and THAT is the central point of the discussion. Don't twist it to suit your view BOBO.
Now he has changed his response even though he cut and paste my original post below. Who is doing the twisting of facts? Only ones here are both of you.
No director in the world would dare wind up a company without a shareholder's approval. He would be liable.
Following the announcement on 11 December, the Board has resolved to appoint Mr. Yan Liu, the Company's current Chief Executive Officer and, Mr. Zhiwei Gu to the Board with immediate effect.
The Company's Board of Directors is now comprised of Mr. David Yu Chen, Mr. Yan Liu, Ms. Juan (Kiki) Wang, and Mr. Zhiwei Gu.
In line with the Company's commitment to reduce its G&A costs, all new appointees to the Board have agreed to a lower level of remuneration compared to previous Directors.If I was being done over. One would be getting a very large pay RISE not a pay cut to help keep cost down.
you are now talking about liquidation, not administration.
To repeat for clarity for others
Carvey your words
“They have the right to call in the loan which means they can serve demand and then call in the receiver.
The receiver will then takeover the company and its bank accounts and allocate the assets to the creditors. I presume, in this scenario, Lind would have some sort of seniority over LO since they are professional loan sharks. RRL owe them around $7m and I expect there are a few mil kicking around in the account.
However, the Chinese are very shifty though as they sold the only tangible asset off to themselves first! First class feckers..... LMAO. What could the receivers get for a bunch of licences and PL's old laptop? Hard to flog in current oil price. It will take time.
Lind must be fuming with the sale of RRDS. I suspect this won't end well unless the Chinese pay them but the question is, why isn't the Chinese paying them? What a bloody big mess and mystery. What are the Chinese playing at?”
Companies can be both in receivership and either administration or liquidation at the same time. If that occurs, receivers generally run the company because they have control over the secured assets, which are normally all the assets of the company. Where receivers alone are involved, they have power over the assets in respect of which they have been appointed. The directors remain liable to perform their statutory liabilities, such as the filing of annual returns and will retain power over any assets which are not the subject of the receiver's appointment.
Question which assets have a security over them, Answer Texas
Question would RRL be pleased to offset the LIND loan against Texas as a result of a receiver being appointed, Answer yes.
You are posting an inaccurate description of the consequence of recievership in relation to LIND
From the insolvency guide, whether shareholders need to approve the winding up of a company:
"Liquidation There are two types of liquidation for an insolvent company: creditors’ voluntary and court. The most common type is a creditors’ voluntary liquidation, which usually begins in one of two ways: 1. when creditors vote for liquidation following a voluntary administration or a terminated deed of company arrangement, or 2. when an insolvent company’s shareholders resolve to liquidate the company and appoint a liquidator. Within 11 days of being appointed by shareholders, the liquidator must call a meeting of creditors who may confirm the liquidator’s appointment or appoint another liquidator of the creditors’ choice."
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.