Fair point - now can I point out is one fairly large MAYBE To me it still looks like they are looking to pin anything at all on bates, all to the detriment of LUFC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Holcroft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [LU] Am I Evil Personified?
> > >> Pete Cass asked: >>> Explain what Bates has done Illegally? >> > > David Conn > Wednesday July 18, 2007 > The Guardian > > Bates' Leeds takeover may have breached insolvency law > > > Ken Bates and his solicitor, Mark Taylor, may have breached insolvency law > by acting as directors of Leeds United Football Club Limited, the new > company formed to buy the club out of administration, according to HM > Revenue and Customs. > The Guardian has learned that one of the grounds for HMRC's challenge to > the > Company Voluntary Arrangement which originally approved the sale by the > administrators, KPMG, to the new company, was that Bates and Taylor did > not > have permission from a court to be directors. HMRC believed permission is > required because both men were previously directors of a different > company, > also called Leeds United Football Club Limited, which went into > liquidation > in June 2006. > > According to s216 of the Insolvency Act 1986, anybody who has been a > director of a company which has gone into liquidation must obtain the > court's permission if he wants to be a director of a new company with a > similar name within five years. Trading without obtaining that permission > is > a criminal offence and anyone prosecuted and found guilty of it is, > according to the act, liable to a fine or imprisonment. > KPMG has said it believes an application has been made to the court on > behalf of Bates and Taylor but the Insolvency Service, which would be > invited to respond to any application, said yesterday it had no notice of > one, although there could be a delay in being informed by a court. > > The question of whether s216 has been satisfied arises from the original > company, Leeds United Football Club Limited, of which Bates and Taylor > were > directors. It changed its name, to Romans Heavies Limited, on December 2 > 2005, then on June 6 2006 went into liquidation. As Bates and Taylor had > both been directors of the company during the 12 months preceding the > liquidation, s216 appears to apply, requiring the court's permission for > them to be directors of any company with a similar name within five years. > HMRC is understood to have argued in its legal challenge to the Leeds > United > CVA that Taylor and Bates were in breach of s216 because the court's > permission had not been granted. > > Neither Taylor nor Bates responded to questions about the alleged breach, > so > it is not known whether they have omitted to make an application or > consider > that it is not necessary for them to do so. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > __________ NOD32 2405 (20070718) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > _______________________________________________ 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
