Jump to content
rllmuk
SeanR

Another ZX Spectrum device indiegogo fundraiser

Recommended Posts

Merde. 

 

Quote

IMPORTANT!!

Hi Folks,
As much as I'd like to be able to put a positive spin on this, I don't believe it's possible. 
As most of you know(especially those who signed up on the website to have me represent you as creditors), sadly the receiver who will appoint a Liquidator has now done a complete U-turn and has now said we are no longer Creditors. 
Just to prove we didn't jump the gun on this the following is a quote from the receiver himself from last month, which is how our online petition came to be.

""There is also the status of the crowd funders. Andrews / Smith regards them as creditors of the company. Levy / Martyn and presumably Janko do not. My information is that court judgements in favour of certain of these crowd funders have been made, therefore the indications are that they would be classified as creditors. Mr Andrews estimates these people to represent several hundreds of thousands of £."

Following a question on Friday to the receiver requesting further clarification on how to officially declare myself as a representative for the backers, I received the following response.

"Nobody’s saying you can’t represent the backers if they want you to and I have no locus to do so but after careful consideration the funders are not going to be classified as creditors of the company so in the context of that which we have discussed"

In a follow-up I did ask why the sudden change, they responded

"Having subsequently reviewed the company’s contract with the crowdfunding website, it would appear that that the crowdfunders are not creditors. However I would point out that at this stage claims are only considered for the purposes of appointing an insolvency practitioner as liquidator. Should sufficient funds become available to enable a dividend to be paid, potential creditors will have an opportunity to submit a claim. Therefore if my understanding is incorrect the crowdfunders will still be able to claim in the liquidation. I understand that Mr Dempsey has a list of over 3500 crowdfunders which will be passed to the liquidator appointed.

All insolvency practitioners are required to act independently in the interests of creditors and both liquidators nominated are therefore neutral.

I would also advise you  that the official receiver  has an obligation to investigate the affairs of the company and report any unfit conduct by directors under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. This applies in all cases, whether or not an insolvency practitioner is appointed as liquidator."

My final response, but guessing on deaf ears was
What about the contract between the backers and Indiegogo? What about the win by Rob Morton? What about Indiegogo changing the term and conditions and changing information on backers accounts from an "Order" to a "Contribution"?

Putting it mildly, words can't describe how we feel at the moment. The closest I can put it is Gutted!

The RCL Vega+ Creditors Group

Ps. Please feel free to repost elsewhere.

 

  • Empathy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it’s worth, I do think that last ‘leaked’ email is a bit suspect.

 

Bringing Wilcox into the conversation is too convenient 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a wild update appears

 

Quote

This is a small summary on behalf of Chris Smith, Darren Melbourne and Paul Andrews on recent insolvency events.

 

On Wednesday the 10th April 2019, Chris, Darren and I attended a creditors meeting at the Official Receivers Office to represent Games Rights Owners and ourselves in the nomination process of an insolvency practitioner for RCL.

 

At the meeting, creditors’ claims were considered by the Official Receiver for voting purposes, and some claims were discounted from this, but may still be counted as creditors in the future. Some claims were only accepted at a token peppercorn value.

 

We supported our preferred practitioner. Whereas, David Levy, Suzanne Martin, Janko Mrsic-Folgel, Private Planet Ltd, Teacher Stern LLP and Michelmores LLP supported their jointly nominated practitioner.

 

It would be inappropriate at this point to go into detail but the Official Receiver allowed one particular claim in excess of £300,000 which dominated the proceedings. Both sides objected to the other sides claims. Inevitably RCL et al had their choice of insolvency practitioner appointed.

 

We requested the right of backer votes to be allowed, totalling over half a million pounds of debt, and vigorously cited the various backers’ small claims successes against RCL. RCL argued they were "donations". The Official Receiver's position was that no individual backer had filed and signed any applications with them to be counted as creditors, despite "the insolvency of RCL being widely publicised".

 

We will update you again when things have progressed further.

 

it is... meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jackfrost71 said:

If there is no money remaining, what is the receiver going to do, send emails to all the creditors that says "You get zero"

Basically, yes. 

 

There are also the selling of the assets to fund the creditors.

 

But the insolvency practitioner has to still audit the bank accounts and check for any wrongdoings and publish their report on why the company failed, to all registered creditors.

 

That means Melbourne and Andrews will get access to this report. Also, it sounds like the solicitors are still owed significant amounts of money, so I don’t think RCL are going to “get away with it”, unless those solicitors are happy to lose money.

 

The saddest thing about this is that none of the backers registered as a creditor. Even when they were asked to be represented by that one person, IIRC less than a hundred did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solicitors will likely have some form of bad debt insurance and trying to establish that the shareholders are personally liable for RCL's debts would take a load of work with no guarantee of those debts being paid.

 

At best some of the directors may get banned from holding a directorship for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gone fishin' said:

 

That means Melbourne and Andrews will get access to this report. Also, it sounds like the solicitors are still owed significant amounts of money, so I don’t think RCL are going to “get away with it”, unless those solicitors are happy to lose money.

 

 

What is special about solicitors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, SeanR said:

The Official Receiver's position was that no individual backer had filed and signed any applications with them to be counted as creditors,

 

The official receiver told the backers they couldn't be counted as creditors so this is some weapon bullshit.

Share this post


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

What does this mean in English?

 

Pretty much what I said. The receivers said the backers can’t claim, so they didn’t claim, then the receivers are saying “well none of the backers claimed so we can’t do anything”.

 

Grade A cunts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deKay said:

 

Pretty much what I said. The receivers said the backers can’t claim, so they didn’t claim, then the receivers are saying “well none of the backers claimed so we can’t do anything”.

 

Grade A cunts.

 

Remember, Official Receivers aren't the Insolvency Practitioners, they're part of the UK Government's Insolvency Service. 

 

It does sound like they're making conflicting statements - one on hand they said that backers are not legally creditors meaning they can't make a decision on who would be appointed as the Insolvency Practitioner, but can make a claim for any money/assets once the Insolvency Practitioner has carried out their assessment of RCL (along with any other creditor).

Quote

Following a question on Friday to the receiver requesting further clarification on how to officially declare myself as a representative for the backers, I received the following response.

"Nobody’s saying you can’t represent the backers if they want you to and I have no locus to do so but after careful consideration the funders are not going to be classified as creditors of the company so in the context of that which we have discussed"

In a follow-up I did ask why the sudden change, they responded

"Having subsequently reviewed the company’s contract with the crowdfunding website, it would appear that that the crowdfunders are not creditors. However I would point out that at this stage claims are only considered for the purposes of appointing an insolvency practitioner as liquidator. Should sufficient funds become available to enable a dividend to be paid, potential creditors will have an opportunity to submit a claim. Therefore if my understanding is incorrect the crowdfunders will still be able to claim in the liquidation. I understand that Mr Dempsey has a list of over 3500 crowdfunders which will be passed to the liquidator appointed.

 

What the Receivers are saying might be true, that backers could have registered individually as creditors, but failed to do so (but even if they did, their claim as a creditor would likely be rejected anyway).

 

Quote

We requested the right of backer votes to be allowed, totalling over half a million pounds of debt, and vigorously cited the various backers’ small claims successes against RCL. RCL argued they were "donations". The Official Receiver's position was that no individual backer had filed and signed any applications with them to be counted as creditors, despite "the insolvency of RCL being widely publicised".

 

It's likely that this is different people from the Official Liquidators "department" making these statements and I know the Vega has got a lot of publicity, but at the end of the day this is just a government process that the company is going through. 

 

Now that an Insolvency Practitioner has been assigned, it's their job to start reviewing what assets are left to sell off. Once they know how much money is available, the backers could all register as claimants to that money. 

 

But to be honest, all of this is completely futile. We know there's going to be fuck all money or assets left anyway. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, deKay said:

 

Pretty much what I said. The receivers said the backers can’t claim, so they didn’t claim, then the receivers are saying “well none of the backers claimed so we can’t do anything”.

 

Grade A cunts.

 

I'll break it down a bit more - what does "weapon bullshit" actually mean? From the above it seems to mean anything you subsequently type.

Share this post


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

 

I'll break it down a bit more - what does "weapon bullshit" actually mean? From the above it seems to mean anything you subsequently type.

 

It's a Nathan Barley reference.

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.