Jump to content
rllmuk
SeanR

Another ZX Spectrum device indiegogo fundraiser

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Lorfarius said:

 

 

Quote

Far from a straightforward dispute about whether Andrews and Smith's lawyers had overcharged for their time or billed for things they should not have done, as happens in normal costs proceedings, RCL and its directors argued that Andrews alone had:

  • Lied to the court
  • Forged a letter that appeared to come from a genuine law firm
  • Encouraged an online campaign of harassment and abuse against RCL's directors
  • Stole RCL's web domain names
  • Hacked RCL's directors' emails

Wrote to RCL's suppliers "attempting to prevent [RCL] from pursuing its business effectively"

 

Deputy Master Friston rejected all of these accusations, which were made in nine separate points put to the costs court. Some he threw out because they were "worlds away from the type of allegation that can properly be regarded" as being within the court's remit. Others he rejected because there was little or no evidence to back them up, or because what evidence there was fell short of the legal threshold of admissibility.

 

The judge also briefly described a tirade of online abuse directed at Levy and Martin, including mocked-up images depicting Levy in Nazi uniform, Martin as "glutenous and obese", and accusations of paedophilia. Mrsic-Flogel was also subject to abuse by whoever was behind the retrocomputers.co.uk and zxvega.co.uk websites, though Deputy Master Friston commented: "I imagine that from their perspective, they found the experience to be brutal, this being because they would all have been concerned about their reputations." He refused to find that Andrews was to blame because, as RCL's barrister admitted when asked what evidence he had linking Andrews to the two horrible websites, "there was none".

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, Private Planet

 

Quote

Director MRSIC-FLOGEL, Janko, Dr

Correspondence address

121 Beaufort Mansions, Beaufort Street, London, SW3 5AE

Role Active

 

have petitioned for a winding up order

 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/windingup.asp

 

on Retro Computer Limited

 

Quote

30 Apr 2016 Appointment of Mr Janko Mrsic-Flogel as a director on 19 April 2016

17 Aug 2018 Termination of appointment of Janko Mrsic-Flogel as a director on 7 August 2018

 

claiming to be a creditor.

 

 

Which means

 

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3193686

 

is a bit of a wheeze.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I reading this right?

 

Company A owes money to company B. Both are owned by the same person who is also a director of both.

During their Directorship, Company A spent pretty much all their money, leaving very little working capital (if any).

 

Said person then quits company A and relinquishes their directorship.

They then (via Company B) call in the debt, knowing that Company A can't pay it. They then use this as a reason to force Company A to wind up.

 

Is this a fair summary, and if so, what's the legalities of this? The person who is owed the money created the debt in the first place (or was jointly responsible for it during their Directorship).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, cubik said:

Am I reading this right?

 

Company A owes money to company B. Both are owned by the same person who is also a director of both.

During their Directorship, Company A spent pretty much all their money, leaving very little working capital (if any).

 

Said person then quits company A and relinquishes their directorship.

They then (via Company B) call in the debt, knowing that Company A can't pay it. They then use this as a reason to force Company A to wind up.

 

Is this a fair summary, and if so, what's the legalities of this? The person who is owed the money created the debt in the first place (or was jointly responsible for it during their Directorship).

 

 

 

Yes. As long as it’s the company entities then it’s legit. But as per the link, the creditors should make it clear that this is what they’re trying to do.

 

and that the directors should be personally liable 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, cubik said:

Am I reading this right?

 

Company A owes money to company B. Both are owned by the same person who is also a director of both.

During their Directorship, Company A spent pretty much all their money, leaving very little working capital (if any).

 

Said person then quits company A and relinquishes their directorship.

They then (via Company B) call in the debt, knowing that Company A can't pay it. They then use this as a reason to force Company A to wind up.

 

Is this a fair summary, and if so, what's the legalities of this? The person who is owed the money created the debt in the first place (or was jointly responsible for it during their Directorship).

 

 

 

They aren't owned by the same person.  One person has been (past tense) a director of both companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the 4 shareholders (levy, SRL, Andrews, and smith) own the company

 

martin and flogel  were illegally installed directors

 

the money was spent trying to relieve Andrews and smith of their shareholdings

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JPickford said:

 

They aren't owned by the same person.  One person has been (past tense) a director of both companies.

Fair point, my mistake. Some of the directors of RCL were never shareholders.

 

If for some reason the Directors were to be found personally liable, can the courts "roll this back" to the point in time at which the debt was created and pin it on the directors from that time, even though they've since quit or would liability automatically end up going to whoever is a current director?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, gone fishin' said:

Cue old blue eyes.....

 

”And now, the end is near. And so I face... the final curtain”

 

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08831435/filing-history

 

RCL have been issued a winding up order, results of which will be in the next few days.

 

Haven't people been saying "the end is near!" and acting as if there's some resolution to all of this on the horizon, finally, following every little development of the story, for at least the past year?

I don't think this is anywhere near resolved, and it won't be until those responsible have received their just deserts. Winding up a company is just another stalling tactic, or an attempt to shirk the consequences.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are things happening? That looks like someone with no official affiliation to the company starting a petition. 

 

It would be great if things did happen and there were refund and/or justice for the backers but I can't see it having any kind of meaningful conclusion or happy ending. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cubik said:

Are things happening? That looks like someone with no official affiliation to the company starting a petition. 

 

It would be great if things did happen and there were refund and/or justice for the backers but I can't see it having any kind of meaningful conclusion or happy ending. 

 

Paul Andrews is suggesting people sign it over on FB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, cubik said:

Are things happening? That looks like someone with no official affiliation to the company starting a petition. 

 

It would be great if things did happen and there were refund and/or justice for the backers but I can't see it having any kind of meaningful conclusion or happy ending. 

 

Consider it a kind of class action that means that, as a collective, the 700 backers become a creditor, who are owed £80,000, and get some say in the winding up,

 

like assigning the liquidators.

 

Which is why fat jankos other company, private planet, is claiming they’re a creditor.

 

because  if that happens, there’s no forensic accounting, and Janko, levy, and Martin get away with emptying the RCL coffers, and filing falsified accounts.

 

that’s  less likely if graham kenny represents the backers, with their blessings. Which is what they’re asking for with the form. But it’s not ready to go live as it were.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, thanks for explaining. I never considered the class action option, good to see someone may just keep the thieves from covering their tracks.

Wouldn't Andrews now have access to the full accounts anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cubik said:

Wouldn't Andrews now have access to the full accounts anyway?

 

Yeah, but because of “things going on behind the scenes, can’t really talk about it openly. At this time.”

 

as he puts it in the FB group...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let’s say 80 people got a Vega+, and 166 are wanting money back. What are the other 4450-odd other backers doing? Are they just going “oh well never mind” over their £100+? Bizarre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, deKay said:

So let’s say 80 people got a Vega+, and 166 are wanting money back. What are the other 4450-odd other backers doing? Are they just going “oh well never mind” over their £100+? Bizarre.

 

yeah. it happens.

 

After all, they were only backing an idea... :facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A class action suit will mean the case will be heard in the High Court. It will be years before the claim is heard once it's been issued, assuming it's not settled before a final hearing (and it seems unlikely it will be settled if the company is wound up). Class action suits are complicated and take a lot of organising before you even get to issuing the claim.

 

The best advice I heard from a Judge about bringing a claim for money was to properly consider if you think there is a realistic chance of getting your money back. Even if the case is found in your favour in a final hearing, getting a court order in your favour doesn't mean you will ever see the money you are owed, regardless of the enforcement options it opens up for you. It will also cost you time and money to get there. I would imagine this is what many of the 4550+ are thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.