Member Info for Toffers

"Notice of the petition must appear in the Gazette not less than seven business days after service of the petition and not less than seven business days before the day of the hearing. Advertising the petition will potentially notify other creditors that a petition has been issued and when it is to be heard. If the petition is not advertised as required the court can dismiss it.

This is a critical step in the process. If a petition is advertised in the Gazette this can have devastating consequences for the company. Banks monitor the Gazette closely and as soon as a petition is advertised the company will ordinarily have its accounts frozen and will no longer have access to any funds. In circumstances where the company considers it inappropriate for a WUP to have been presented, it can take steps to prevent advertisement of the petition in the Gazette." - same source.

Wonder what Queeld and Mispare will do now?!

Can't see the petition has been published yet, but here's the web address if you want to keep an eye out, as may be it will appear on Monday, and should give a date for the hearing of the application I assume.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/insolvency/notice?noticetypes=2450&results

"Generally a creditor will make multiple attempts to recover the debt from the company, or to reach a compromise, before taking steps to issue a WUP." - same source.

Last post should have all been in quotation marks as from that source.

Section 122 of the IA 86 sets out the grounds on which a company may be wound up by the court.

The court will generally accept that a company is unable to pay its debts where it is shown that:

"A statutory demand has been served for an undisputed sum exceeding £750 and the company has failed to pay the sum due within three weeks; or

The company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due; or

The value of the company's assets is less than the amount of its liabilities." - same source.

"While the threat or issuing of a WUP may put pressure on a company to pay an outstanding debt, winding up proceedings should not be seen as a debt collection process for individual creditors. Rather, they should be seen as a mechanism for putting an insolvent debtor into a collective form of insolvency proceedings for the benefit of all creditors." - same source.

"A creditor may choose to issue a WUP if it has been unsuccessful in recovering an undisputed debt of at least £750 and it can prove that the company is unable to pay its debts as and when they fall due, or that the company is balance sheet insolvent (as defined by section 123 of the IA 86).

Winding up proceedings should only be commenced if the debt can be proven and there is no dispute as to whether it is due. If the debt is genuinely disputed, or the company has a genuine cross-claim or right of set-off, winding up proceedings are not appropriate..." source: Gowlings

Who is this "he" then stretch? I'd like to meet him! You fool.

Just to remind of the seriousness of the action taken by Gowlings who represented the company in the Logik case.

"Any disposition of a company’s property that is made after the date that a winding up petition is presented is automatically void if the company is ultimately wound up by the court. Once wound up, a liquidator is likely to seek to recover such property.

A company’s bank is therefore likely to freeze its accounts to protect the bank’s interests. In order to avoid this (and assuming the company wishes to continue trading) the company will normally have to seek a validation order from the court.

The presentation of a winding up petition can cause substantial harm to the reputation of a company. For example, it may find it more difficult to obtain credit whilst the petition is outstanding; existing creditors may pursue outstanding debts more vigorously than would otherwise be the case; and individuals and other businesses may be put off from doing business with the company generally." source: cripps.co.uk

And the tomfooleries think a sale will happen whilst the winding up petition is in situ? !!!!

Bfd, I have answered you, but you fail to answer my questions in my post of 20.01. Handy that isn't it that you deliberately swerve that and then try and discredit me! Why do you think monies were moved offshore? any ideas come to mind? why are all the assets out of the jurisdiction? not that I see any other than the monies offshore, because the unexcavated minerals remain the property of the Russian State anyway, and a few portacabins and cranes, probably with leasing agreements in Russia, aren't going to cut it. The only thing of any worth within the jurisdiction are CS's shares, but if the company goes bust, they have no value obviously!

Sandwell, you are a complete fool, you also don't know what you are talking about, it was me that made the complaint to the FRC, so my posting contained FACT, and yet you called it "sheeeet". Just shows what an absolute tomfoolery you are.

"Lepard disagrees with the $1,700 forecast and expects gold to reach between $3,000 and $10,000 an ounce. He believes the market has bottomed and that gold company valuations can only get better." - same source

Found this also;

https://www.kitco.com/news/2023-09-21/Lawrence-Lepard-founder-of-Equity-Management-Associates-on-why-gold-companies-have-performed-poorly.html

Guys I've not caught up on posts since yesterday as yet, but just wanted to say that although I don't have a subscription, I do get emails, and TW posted yesterday on his site that "Asset manager Lawrence Lepard of Equity Management Associates reckons gold is going on a rip" and TW states "Gold holding strong because it knows what's coming - $3,000 on the cards within 5 years." Looking good then :)

Apologies if anyone else has already posted this!

It's clear bfd you have been sent in by the TG, as you have only 18 posts to your handle tonight. Ironic that isn't it! Furthermore, you have no grasp of the situation at all. Go and do some a lot of research because you need to. Nite.

That's why Gowlings have applied for a winding up order you fool. Queeld and Mispare were none the wiser I suspect about the winding up petition until it was issued on 25 October, and their litigation had already been running since 2018!

Refer back to my post of 20.01 bfd.

I have answered you bdf, but you choose not to answer me.

The courts jurisdiction is for England and Wales. Trying to secure assets outside of the jurisdiction is always a difficult one, and especially so if funds are held offshore, it's nigh on impossible, and the same applies to assets held abroad, and especially so within the Russian State! Queeld and Mispare needed the company to continue operating and the likelihood would have been, if they won their case, they would have then sold their shares lock stock and barrel, as indeed they wanted to do years ago but were estopped from doing so. Imagine if they win and they then flood the market with those shares? Imagine - think on!

No Sandwell, you are the one who is thick, because I know something in my posting is very much a FACT, and yet you stated and I quote "you are full of sheeeet!" Well actually you are very very wrong.