Member Info for SilverSpoons

in 12 months time when Debs is finally liquidated for small change I'm sure the bond holders will think why didn't we accept MAs offer. A combined HoF Deb Spd has a chance, but on it's own it will imo just continue to loose money and will lead to eventual capitulation. If MA does successfully prove in court that rules were broken in the events that lead to the company being taken into administration, then at least ex shareholders will manage to walk away with some form of compensation courtesy of those responsible.

Condition (ii) My Lord.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48449769

How revealing. Does you username refer to mistakes made at the altar?

Plenty more to come, and it's not the first time either: https://youtu.be/RZ2oXzrnti4

, what then? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/19/mike-ashley-seeks-support-for-legal-challenge-to-debenhams-rescue

HoF didn't last long after it's CVA was challenged. If liquidation does follow, what does this say about the decision to put the company into administration vs accepting MAs offer?

Was any attempt made to raise cash from shareholders before the NAV dropped below zero? Why were constant offers by MA to inject cash into the business continually rejected in favour of creditors money? Were loan covenants unreasonably favourable to creditors and designed to deliberately to hinder any shareholder raising of funds? All good questions for our learned friends to consider, and none of which anyone not in possession of all the facts is able to answer, and that includes you daniel.f

https://www.retail-week.com/department-stores/ashley-considers-legal-challenge-over-debenhams-rescue-plan/7031940.article

@metemorphosid. In the event that a court awarded an amount per share to all shareholders then anyone net short at yhr moment the shares were suspended would have to pay. It's the same as when a dividend is payed.

Old news but posting it since some people appear to have forgotten it: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/mike-ashley-releases-furious-statement-155200189.html

http://www.cityam.com/277325/mps-push-law-change-give-shareholders-and-business-owners/amp

..will happen because behind all the rush to pre pack and the unwillingness to take MAs money something definitely stinks. I cannot state what that is since I was not privy to what went on outside of RNS releases, however the smoke signals are there, the biggest of which being that no rights issue, never mind how diluting, was ever put before shareholders. Why was this, because the plan was imo to shut shareholders out, even if it meant breaking the rules. I believe the hope was that the existing laws around insolvency would prevent and case ever being brought, but that could all change if the Supreme Court ruling goes our way.

The publicity and precidence surrounding this could well turn any legal action into a test case of significant importance in company law. Lawyers love this sort of challenge, especially the professional acknowledgement that results from having their names written into case law.

It will be up to the court to decide who pays in the event of any finding of illegality, however if it was found that the law was broken and that the administration should have not have occurred when it did then the process will have to be unwound. Now this would obviously be prohibitively expensive and at this point the new owners of the new company would probably negotiate a settlement with the previous shareholders. IMO as a minimum this would probably equate to the offer being proposed at the time of 5p a share, though it could very well be more.

Shareholders have limited liability. Hence the term limited company. If it is proven that the creditors illegally took control of the company, either through there own actions or others the either the company will be returned or compensation will be determined. It's a bit like when a car is bought by a third party from a second party that obtained the car through fraud. The third party is duty bound to return the car to it's original owner.

IMO compensation is often sought from any party that benefits from an illegal act and this does not have to be the same party who committed the act.

If it is proven that rules were broken to the financial detriment of shareholders then the company will be instructed by the court to pay compensation to said shareholders. Now you can argue the toss about whether the court will or will not side one way or the other or if someone like MA or the FCA will take up the case but to state definitely that no such event will ever occur is to show a complete lack of understanding in the UK's legal system. As for your comment about the proper press, City AM may not have the titillations of the mainstream media, but when it comes to financial matters it pretty much beats all but the FT.

Why should I accept a full right off, especially on the advise of someone who clearly benefited from this "national disgrace". Sure it's not going to keep me up at night, and I am more than able to accommodate the loss, however an injustice has occurred and fingers crossed our slow but usually just legal system will eventually get round to awarding compensation. As for your presumsions about MA, you seem to have missed every related announcement he has made since he became aware of, in his words "conspiracy" that was going on. Lastly, ask yourself this, why if this was going to be such a simple slam dunk, did CO spend so much towards the end buying up shares. Could it be he didn't want to be holding too big a net short position come suspension. People like him usually look at all the angles. To all those who never did close their short position, maybe they will receive a demand down the line when a shareholder compensation package is agreed. Now that would make me laugh.

As Noel Edmonds vs HBOS showns, these things often take a very long time to resolve. MA has more legal resources to call on so hopefully a result will not take so long.

http://www.cityam.com/277325/mps-push-law-change-give-shareholders-and-business-owners/amp