ATTN JMS: Wolf Winding Up?
Paul Harper
According to a credit check I've just done on Wolf, the London Gazette
posted on the 14th April that a compulsory winding-up order had been
taken out on the company.
Are you (or any of the other B5 / Star Trek people) aware of this?
What do you think this might mean to anyone hoping to go to a Wolf
Event? Makes it all sound a bit risky to me.
Paul.
--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
" . . . SFX is a fairly useless publication on just
about every imaginable front. Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so
little, with so much, for so long." JMS.
Jms at B5
>posted on the 14th April that a compulsory winding-up order had been
>taken out on the company.
>
What does that mean specifically? Bear in mind that I'm not as up on British
business practices as I might be.
>Are you (or any of the other B5 / Star Trek people) aware of this?
>
No, this is the first I've heard of it.
>What do you think this might mean to anyone hoping to go to a Wolf
>Event? Makes it all sound a bit risky to me.
The answer to that would depend on a fuller understanding on my part as to what
a winding up order means.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
Tom Holt
The message <20000515193926...@ng-bj1.aol.com>
from jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) contains these words:
> Paul Harper wrote -
> >According to a credit check I've just done on Wolf, the London Gazette
> >posted on the 14th April that a compulsory winding-up order had been
> >taken out on the company.
> >
> What does that mean specifically?
An ex-lawyer writes -
If I remember my company law (it's been a while...) a winding-up
order is to a corporation what a death warrant is to a human being;
in other words, the Companies Registrar is about to strap the body
corporate in question into Old Sparky and turn on the juice.
The most common reason for compulsory winding-up orders is failure to
file accounts with the Registrar at the time intervals specified by statute.
The net result will be that government-appointed liquidators will
take possession of the corporation's assets and use them to pay off
creditors. Anybody who believes that they're owed money by the
corporation should lodge details of their claim with the liquidators
within a certain specified period of time. Once that time period has
expired, further claims will not be considered. The names & addresses
of the liquidators should be stated in the London Gazette
advertisement referred to above.
(The London Gazette is a sort of newspaper, but there are no film
reviews or sports pages; it's a statutory publication issued by HM
Stationery Office containing public notices. If HMSO was living in
the 21st century or even the 20th, it'd be available online; I don't
think it is, tho' I haven't checked)
If the corporation's assets are insufficient to pay all its debts,
the liquidators will pay the priority creditors first (you guessed it
- the government gets first bite, for taxes; then employees; then
trade suppliers, customers and the rest of the Little People. Of
course, very first bite of all goes to pay the fees of the
'insolvency practitioners' carrying out the liquidation; when I was a
lawyer, there was generally precious little left out of the average
liquidation once the legal jackals had been at the carcass - it was
practically a point of honor, if that word has any meaning in the
context of the legal profession)
The liquidators have power to 'claw back' assets of the company
improperly appropriated by the directors to satisfy 'preferences' -
ie paying debts due to themselves, their friends or families; paying
in full creditors who make loud noises and threaten lawsuits, in the
hope that they'll go away and allow the directors to carry on trading
while insolvent &c
IIRC, the liquidators will also consider recommending criminal
proceedings against the directors of the company if they have reason
to believe that the directors have committed a criminal offence by,
for example, continuing to trade while knowing or having reason to
believe that the corporation was insolvent, or attempting to defraud
creditors by siphoning off assets and/or appropriating assets to
preferences prior to liquidation.
(This is a summary of the law as I remember it when I took the
Underground Railroad out of the legal profession 5 years ago, and qua
legal advice is worth exactly what you paid for it. Consult your own
lawyer. Keep out of each of children. Contents may settle during
transit. And so forth)
In short; if, as alleged, a compulsory winding-up order has been
issued in respect of Wolf 359, the strange sniggering noise you can
hear floating in on the wind is probably the banshee.
Andrew Swallow
at B5) writes:
>Subject: Re: ATTN JMS: Wolf Winding Up?
>From: jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5)
>Date: 15 May 2000 17:40:03 -0600
>
>>According to a credit check I've just done on Wolf, the London Gazette
>>posted on the 14th April that a compulsory winding-up order had been
>>taken out on the company.
>>
>
>What does that mean specifically? Bear in mind that I'm not as up on British
>business practices as I might be.
>
>>Are you (or any of the other B5 / Star Trek people) aware of this?
>>
>No, this is the first I've heard of it.
>
>>What do you think this might mean to anyone hoping to go to a Wolf
>>Event? Makes it all sound a bit risky to me.
>
>The answer to that would depend on a fuller understanding on my part as to
>what
>a winding up order means.
>
> jms
>
>(jms...@aol.com)
>B5 Official Fan Club at:
>http://www.thestation.com
>(all message content (c) 2000 by
>synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
>to reprint specifically denied to
>SFX Magazine)
>
I am a little out of date on bankruptcy law, so this may not be fully correct.
A winding up order means that legal bankruptcy proceedings are now at an
advanced stage. A county court judge (or in London High Court judge) has
reviewed and agreed to a creditor's request that the company be made bankrupt.
The company's directors have been removed from power. Control of the company
now lies with the receiver, Official Receiver or liquidator. Any claims for
unpaid bills should be sent to him. He is authorised to cancel contracts, in
addition to selling any goods, machines and buildings.
The company may or may not still be trading. It will only be trading if the
liquidator thinks he will get more money that way. And can persuade the
electric company to turn the lights back on!
First claim on any money goes to the employees, the tax man and the
liquidator's fees. The banks get what they have obtained as security. The
rest of the creditors get a share of anything that is left.
The ex-directors can be banned from running a company for several years.
Although this is fairly rare.
The London Gazette is a newspaper printed by the Civil Service and contains all
the Official Announcements.
-------
In Babylon 5 terms, do you think that Psi Corps rules would ban commercial
teeps from working for a company in this state? An exception for cash on
delivery?
Although a better question is, would Lyta work for the creditors in the public
examination of the debtor?
Andrew Swallow
Pål Are Nordal
>
> (The London Gazette is a sort of newspaper, but there are no film
> reviews or sports pages; it's a statutory publication issued by HM
> Stationery Office containing public notices. If HMSO was living in
> the 21st century or even the 20th, it'd be available online; I don't
> think it is, tho' I haven't checked)
It is available at http://www.londongazette.co.uk/, but if you want
anything else than the last 2 issues you have to pony up £950. Ouch.
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Alison Hopkins
Tom Holt wrote in message <200005160...@zetnet.co.uk>...
......>In short; if, as alleged, a compulsory winding-up order has been
>issued in respect of Wolf 359, the strange sniggering noise you can
>hear floating in on the wind is probably the banshee.
>
Mingled with the mills of God grinding slow and all those chickens clucking
as they merrily come home to roost?
Ali
Phoebe
<snip>
>
> IIRC, the liquidators will also consider recommending criminal
> proceedings against the directors of the company if they have reason
> to believe that the directors have committed a criminal offence by,
> for example, continuing to trade while knowing or having reason to
> believe that the corporation was insolvent, or attempting to defraud
> creditors by siphoning off assets and/or appropriating assets to
> preferences prior to liquidation.
Assets ? Like for example .... a large collection of autographed photos ?
Paul Harper
>Assets ? Like for example .... a large collection of autographed photos ?
You mean the ones the actors signed "for charity". Those ones?
I would have thought they'd have all been flogged off on the quiet by
now.
Jms at B5
NO interest at all in doing ANYthing to help Bryan (or Brian or whatever), but
there is that nagging obligation I have to accuracy. I should mention that I
trust this source implicitly.
"The winding up order is part of the usual process of closing a Company under
English company law. There is absolutely nothing to be read into this
whatsoever! My understanding from Cooney, which is backed up by the fact check
that I did, is that the company has been closed voluntarily because Cooney
himself is retiring from conventions shortly."
For what it's worth.
Alison Hopkins
Jms at B5 wrote in message <20000516172023...@ng-fz1.aol.com>...
>BTW, I received an email that may help to clarify the situation. Mind, I
have
>NO interest at all in doing ANYthing to help Bryan (or Brian or whatever),
but
>there is that nagging obligation I have to accuracy. I should mention that
I
>trust this source implicitly.
>
>"The winding up order is part of the usual process of closing a Company
under
>English company law. There is absolutely nothing to be read into this
>whatsoever! My understanding from Cooney, which is backed up by the fact
check
>that I did, is that the company has been closed voluntarily because Cooney
>himself is retiring from conventions shortly."
>
>For what it's worth.
>
I don't dispute your source in the least, but something doesn't quite add
up. If Mr. Cooney is retiring shortly, then it seems odd that the "new" Wolf
Events website is advertising cons well in to next year! At least one of
them is aiming to be very large indeed. So, why the name change and the
cessation of Wolf 359? He wasn't even a director of the original Wolf 359,
altho', that of course, may have changed of late.
I can't quite see why there'd be a need to wind the company up for that
reason, either; you can file null returns and let it lapse, I believe. But I
am not an expert on company law, I've just had the misfortune to work for
one that went under; not as any kind of director, thankfully.
The London Gazette notice refers to "compulsory" winding up, so it would be
interesting to know what the different types are. Any UK corporate legal
eagles out there? :) :) :)
Ali
Tom Holt
The message <8fsh9a$k3f$1...@lure.pipex.net>
from "Alison Hopkins" <fn...@dial.pipex.com> contains these words:
> The London Gazette notice refers to "compulsory" winding up, so it would be
> interesting to know what the different types are.
IIRC: voluntary, where you do it of your own free will; compulsory,
where it's done unto you from a great height.
There's also something called a composition with creditors, where you
all gather in the golf club bar and sort it out like sensible adults,
though a one-way airline ticket to Guatemala hidden in an inside
pocket is generally held to be a wise precaution.
Iain Rae
> The message <8fsh9a$k3f$1...@lure.pipex.net>
> from "Alison Hopkins" <fn...@dial.pipex.com> contains these words:
>
> > The London Gazette notice refers to "compulsory" winding up, so it wo=
uld be
> > interesting to know what the different types are.
>
> IIRC: voluntary, where you do it of your own free will; compulsory,
> where it's done unto you from a great height.
>
> There's also something called a composition with creditors, where you
> all gather in the golf club bar and sort it out like sensible adults,
> though a one-way airline ticket to Guatemala hidden in an inside
> pocket is generally held to be a wise precaution.
>From http://www.insolvency.co.uk/legal/liqfaq.htm#type
3. What types of liquidations are available?
There are three types of liquidation available
a) Members/Shareholders voluntary liquidation (MVL)
b) Creditors voluntary liquidation (CVL)
c) Compulsory Liquidation
The shareholders voluntary liquidation is where a company goes int=
o
liquidation but it expects to pay all its creditors, employees,
taxes and also pay the shareholders part, all or more than their o=
rdinary
capital. An insolvency practitioner is appointed by the
members over the affairs of the company as liquidator.
The creditors voluntary liquidation is where a company is insolven=
t i.e.
it cannot pay its debts as and when they fall due and is forced
into liquidation. An insolvency practitioner is appointed liquidat=
or by
the members/creditors.
A Compulsory Liquidation is where a company is forced into liquida=
tion by
one of its creditors (for not payment of debts) or the
Secretary of State appoints a liquidator over the affairs of the c=
ompany.
and
11. What is a Compulsory Liquidation (Court)
Where a creditor proceeds against a company to realise his debt an=
d the
company is unable to pay its debt the company is would up
by the court. The creditor must be owed more than =A3750 and he mu=
st have
given 21 days notice to the company through a statutory
demand.
If the company is wound up by the court the liquidator is the Offi=
cial
Receiver a government employee. If the company has assets the
Official receiver calls for a creditors meeting at which meeting a=
n
Insolvency Practitioner is appointed liquidator, to realise the assets
and then distribute the proceeds to the creditors.
12. What is a Creditors Voluntary Liquidation
A creditors voluntary liquidation is a liquidation where the compa=
ny is
insolvent i.e. it can not pay its creditors.
The directors pass a resolution that the company can not continue =
to
trade and call for a members and creditors meetings to be held.
The meetings decide upon the liquidator, liquidation committee and=
other
relevant matters specific to the company, and the company
goes into liquidation.
The documents required to be produced at the members and creditors
meetings are the Statement of Affairs (detailing assets and
liabilities), A deficiency account, Statutory information, and his=
tory of
the company with an explanation of the deficiency and the
reasons for failure. The creditors can request further explanation=
s if
they so wish.
In most cases the directors are assisted by an Insolvency Practiti=
oner in
preparing the above statements and generally organises the
meeting, letters, notices, advertising, etc.
So there would appear to be something odd going on. Of course I suppose i=
t's
possible that this could be some legal jiggery-pokery to get round someth=
ing in
law.
Paul Harper
>Cooney himself is retiring from conventions shortly."
Most of organised UK fandom will breathe a sigh of relief if this is
true.
But like anything and everything connected with Cooney, it is always
safest to assume nothing that is said is accurate until it actually
happens.
There are still events being publicised in the UK under the moniker
"Wolf Events", the question of who's handling the money (which
certainly in the original advertising, copies of which I have safely
filed away, was being directed to Cooney's private home address) is as
yet unanswered.
Wouldn't you agree, Joe, that in these circumstances it would be best
if someone from "Wolf Events" could let everyone know who's running
the show now, and in what capacity Bryan Cooney is involved?
Me? I'm not celebrating just yet.
Jms at B5
>if someone from "Wolf Events" could let everyone know who's running
>the show now, and in what capacity Bryan Cooney is involved?
>
I should think that it would be the only right and responsible thing to do. I
think people would have a right to know that sort of thing.
WWS
Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> >Wouldn't you agree, Joe, that in these circumstances it would be best
> >if someone from "Wolf Events" could let everyone know who's running
> >the show now, and in what capacity Bryan Cooney is involved?
> >
>
> I should think that it would be the only right and responsible thing to do. I
> think people would have a right to know that sort of thing.
This "voluntary retirement" reminds me of a notice that was posted at
a company where I once worked. It had been common knowledge that
their was a very bitter executive level power struggle going on,
with numerous supporters and players on both sides getting booted
on the flimsiest pretenses. Finally, it worked it's way to the
top, and one morning we were greeted to this memo (not the real name)
"The Directors are saddened to anounce that Mr. Smith, our VP in
charge of Operations, had decided to pursue his lifelong interest
in Horse Ranching, and regretfully has decided to retire, effective
immediately. A Farewell reception will be held this Friday".
--
_________________________________________________WWS_____________
Think parochially, post globally -- Peter McDermott
Phoebe
> On 16 May 2000 14:58:38 -0600, Phoebe <rutho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >Assets ? Like for example .... a large collection of autographed photos ?
>
> You mean the ones the actors signed "for charity". Those ones?
>
> I would have thought they'd have all been flogged off on the quiet by
> now.
>
>
Maybe not ...
"WOLF EVENTS MERCHANDISE"
http://members.aol.com/wolf359con/shop.htm
Iain Rae
> The message <20000515193926...@ng-bj1.aol.com>
> from jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) contains these words:
>
> > Paul Harper wrote -
>
> > >According to a credit check I've just done on Wolf, the London Gazet=
te
> > >posted on the 14th April that a compulsory winding-up order had been
> > >taken out on the company.
> > >
>
> > What does that mean specifically?
>
> An ex-lawyer writes -
>
> If I remember my company law (it's been a while...) a winding-up
> order is to a corporation what a death warrant is to a human being;
> in other words, the Companies Registrar is about to strap the body
> corporate in question into Old Sparky and turn on the juice.
>
> The most common reason for compulsory winding-up orders is failure to
> file accounts with the Registrar at the time intervals specified by sta=
tute.
>
When this appeared on the uk group I did some digging and found
http://www.gmichaels.demon.co.uk/compuls1.htm:
Compulsory Winding-Up (By Court)
When is it used ?
This form of winding-up is instigated by a creditor who is owed
=A3750 or more. The creditor takes out a winding-up petition against the
company through the courts.
How is it used ?
A petition is taken out and the Court will wind the company up.
Liquidator
The Court will appoint the Official Receiver in the first
instance to act as liquidator. If the company has assets he will either
call a creditors' meeting or appoint a liquidator.
The role of liquidator
The liquidator's role is to realise the assets of the company and
to distribute them to the creditors.
-----
Note that the item that Paul talks about is someone issuing a (?) writ fo=
r such
an order, What little knowlege we have seems to suggest that if Wolf have=
the
money they can pay the bill (plus court costs?), but it's doubtful anyone=
would
let things get to this stage if they could avoid it. Also it appears on t=
heir
credit history which doesn't help either. The fact that something called =
Wolf
Events seems to be using Wolf 359's credit card facilities won't go down =
well
either if it's a seperate entity.
>
> The net result will be that government-appointed liquidators will
> take possession of the corporation's assets and use them to pay off
> creditors. Anybody who believes that they're owed money by the
> corporation should lodge details of their claim with the liquidators
> within a certain specified period of time. Once that time period has
> expired, further claims will not be considered. The names & addresses
> of the liquidators should be stated in the London Gazette
> advertisement referred to above.
>
There are links at the above website to search engines which cover liquid=
ation
notices, as of Sunday night Wolf didn't appear, I'll check again when I g=
et
back into the office tomorrow (ok later today).
> IIRC, the liquidators will also consider recommending criminal
> proceedings against the directors of the company if they have reason
> to believe that the directors have committed a criminal offence by,
> for example, continuing to trade while knowing or having reason to
> believe that the corporation was insolvent, or attempting to defraud
> creditors by siphoning off assets and/or appropriating assets to
> preferences prior to liquidation.
>
Hmm...... this should be interesting ;)
>
> (This is a summary of the law as I remember it when I took the
> Underground Railroad out of the legal profession 5 years ago, and qua
> legal advice is worth exactly what you paid for it. Consult your own
> lawyer. Keep out of each of children. Contents may settle during
> transit. And so forth)
>
> In short; if, as alleged, a compulsory winding-up order has been
> issued in respect of Wolf 359, the strange sniggering noise you can
> hear floating in on the wind is probably the banshee.
Expect to see the results of the train crash on an episode of watchdog(UK
consumer program) near you.
Paul Harper
>"WOLF EVENTS MERCHANDISE"
Be worth a fortune in a few year, that stuff. Notorious artifacts
always are.
Lorrie Wood
Paul Harper <pa...@harper.net> wrote:
>On 20 May 2000 19:54:02 -0600, lor...@araw.mede.uic.edu (Lorrie Wood)
>wrote:
>
>>Ah, looks like another case of the old stud being put out to
>>pasture.
>
>Given that the old stud in question here is still prancing around
>doing his best to ruin other people's conventions, I'd say that the
>happy rumours of his early demise are sadly mistaken.
Er, Paul, it appears you shot my original attribution in the
foot, which was:
In article <3922AC50...@tyler.net>, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
... and which didn't directly refer to the guys in charge of
Wolf Productions, my opinions of whom are unprintable in a family forum. ;)
-- Lorrie
--
<*> -- Lorrie Wood -- <*> -- lor...@pennmush.tinymush.org -- <*>
I believe in everything; nothing is sacred.
I believe in nothing; everything is sacred.
-- Tom Robbins, _Even_Cowgirls_Get_the-Blues_
Alison Hopkins
Lorrie Wood wrote in message <8gbrfj$5lo$1...@newsx.cc.uic.edu>...
> ... and which didn't directly refer to the guys in charge of
>Wolf Productions, my opinions of whom are unprintable in a family forum. ;)
>
I think I like you already. <g>
Ali
Lorrie Wood
Well, thank you! I *do* try...
-- Lorrie, who has been with rastb5m since The Beginning, just hasn't posted
much in the last year or so.
Alison Hopkins
Lorrie Wood wrote in message <8gg11l$um1$1...@newsx.cc.uic.edu>...
>In article <8gbuhu$6bs$1...@lure.pipex.net>,
>Alison Hopkins <fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>>
>>Lorrie Wood wrote in message <8gbrfj$5lo$1...@newsx.cc.uic.edu>...
>>
>>> ... and which didn't directly refer to the guys in charge of
>>>Wolf Productions, my opinions of whom are unprintable in a family forum.
;)
>>>
>>
>>I think I like you already. <g>
>
> Well, thank you! I *do* try...
>
>-- Lorrie, who has been with rastb5m since The Beginning, just hasn't
posted
> much in the last year or so.
>
But when you do, it's quality stuff. <g>
Ali
Paul Harper
>My understanding from Cooney, which is backed up by the fact check
>that I did, is that the company has been closed voluntarily because Cooney
>himself is retiring from conventions shortly."
He was at Page's bar on Saturday (which was fortunate, because I was
wearing my "President, Bryan Cooney Fan Club" tee-shirt, which I'm
sure he appreciated.
Mention was made several times over the public address system of a
convention that he's running in July of next year - it was in the
context of the Star Trek con in August that has collapsed.
We're all just waiting for him or his acolytes to "step into the
breach and rescue the situation" as though the whole thing hadn't been
pre-planned.
Sorry Joe - he's as active as he ever was, and looks to be that way
for some time to come :-(
Christian Smith
>On 16 May 2000 15:21:08 -0600, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>
>>My understanding from Cooney, which is backed up by the fact check
>>that I did, is that the company has been closed voluntarily because Cooney
>>himself is retiring from conventions shortly."
>
>He was at Page's bar on Saturday (which was fortunate, because I was
>wearing my "President, Bryan Cooney Fan Club" tee-shirt, which I'm
>sure he appreciated.
>
>Mention was made several times over the public address system of a
>convention that he's running in July of next year - it was in the
>context of the Star Trek con in August that has collapsed.
>
>We're all just waiting for him or his acolytes to "step into the
>breach and rescue the situation" as though the whole thing hadn't been
>pre-planned.
>
>Sorry Joe - he's as active as he ever was, and looks to be that way
>for some time to come :-(
>
That is if he remembers to collect his guests this time <G>
And doesn't publicly slag off any more members of the con organising
community in front of a bunch of fans (which I'm sorry says more about
him than it does who he was having a go at...)
Christian
--
"Every new beginning is some other beginnings end..."
ICQ 45494039
(E_Mail: Remove "NOSPAM" from e-mail address when replying)
Alison Hopkins
Paul Harper wrote in message ...
>On 16 May 2000 15:21:08 -0600, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>
>>My understanding from Cooney, which is backed up by the fact check
>>that I did, is that the company has been closed voluntarily because Cooney
>>himself is retiring from conventions shortly."
>
>He was at Page's bar on Saturday (which was fortunate, because I was
>wearing my "President, Bryan Cooney Fan Club" tee-shirt, which I'm
>sure he appreciated.
>
>Mention was made several times over the public address system of a
>convention that he's running in July of next year - it was in the
>context of the Star Trek con in August that has collapsed.
>
>We're all just waiting for him or his acolytes to "step into the
>breach and rescue the situation" as though the whole thing hadn't been
>pre-planned.
>
He bloody *can't*, if he plans to call it a major Trek con, in the sense of
following on from the long and honourable history thereof. He is excluded
under the business meeting rules.
Ali
Alison Hopkins
Christian Smith wrote in message ...
>And doesn't publicly slag off any more members of the con organising
>community in front of a bunch of fans (which I'm sorry says more about
>him than it does who he was having a go at...)
>
Hm? Can you elucidate old son? if he was having a go at Five-Oh, then I'd
say that is a bit rich. Far better to cancel a con and give full refunds
than not to pay your debts surely.
Ali
Paul Harper
>Alison Hopkins wrote:
>> He bloody *can't*, if he plans to call it a major Trek con, in the sense of
>> following on from the long and honourable history thereof. He is excluded
>> under the business meeting rules.
>
>Given his regard for laws let alone rules do you think he cares ? Anyway,
>Paul's right if he does anything it'll be fronted by one of his little
>followers and he'll swear blind that he is not involved.
Actually, he can arrange any sort of con (in the eclectic sense, of
course!) that he wants. It won't be an "official" Trek con, of course,
but by the time you've got the odd Trek Captain in tow, it won't seem
that different to the average punter.
The sort of person that doesn't worry too much about payments to
guests or charities.
*That's* how he'll get away with it.
... either him or (like I said) one of his attached-at-the-hip,
live-in-the-same-house type acolytes.