BoxRec

phil5555 wrote:

My T Sharp wrote:The board won't do a jot. It would only be a concern if Warren would have bitten Joe.

I think legally Joe will get his money, and Frank is just probably buying some time before paying him.

Basically 50% of the profits from the Hopkins fight were paid to SN of which 80% were to be paid straight to Joe.

It's a straightforward transaction and the law is in place for the directors to be personally punished and liable if Joe does not get paid.

legally its not Fw who owes him money its sports network...........Joe will get nothing .which is wrong ...but thats the way it works with ltd companys

phil5555 wrote:

My T Sharp wrote:The board won't do a jot. It would only be a concern if Warren would have bitten Joe.

I think legally Joe will get his money, and Frank is just probably buying some time before paying him.

Basically 50% of the profits from the Hopkins fight were paid to SN of which 80% were to be paid straight to Joe.

It's a straightforward transaction and the law is in place for the directors to be personally punished and liable if Joe does not get paid.

legally its not Fw who owes him money its sports network...........Joe will get nothing .which is wrong ...but thats the way it works with ltd companys

Actions Against Directors

Wrongful Trading (Section 214 Insolvency Act 1986)

You continue to trade when you knew or ought to have known that your company was insolvent and had little chance of recovery.

If found guilty a director will be required by the court to contribute to the assets of the company as compensation to those creditors who have suffered due to the wrongful trading.

The level of contribution is generally assessed on the extent to which the company’s financial position deteriorated since it was known or should have been known that it was insolvent with no reasonable prospects of avoiding insolvent liquidation.

A successful prosecution may also lead to action under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, seeking to prohibit you from acting as a company director for a period of between 1 and 15 years.

Defence against such an action would take the form of proving that every step was taken to avoid worsening the position of the creditors or indeed mitigating their loss.

>> top

Fraudulent Trading

You continue to trade with the intention of defrauding your creditors.

If found guilty penalties are the same as those incurred in wrongful trading. In addition however being found guilty of fraudulent trading may result in a limitless fine and / or imprisonment for up to 7 years.

>> top

Preference Transactions (Section 239 Insolvency Act 1986)


A preference transaction is any transaction entered into between a company and a third party which has the effect of placing the third party into a better position than he/she/it would otherwise have been (had the transaction not taken place) in the event of the company going into liquidation. One of the most common type of preferential transaction is discharging a debt to a favoured creditor shortly before the company goes into liquidation. The creditor is preferred because he/she/it receives payment of the debt in full whilst other creditors may only receive payment of a percentage of their debt (if anything) from the company in liquidation.

An Administrator or Liquidator may only seek orders setting aside the preferential transaction (or other order under the section) if it was entered into 6 months prior to the “onset of insolvency” which will usually be the date upon which a formal insolvency procedure was commenced.

If however the transaction is between the company and a person “connected” with the company then this time limit is extended to 2 years.

A person (which includes a company) is “connected” with an insolvent company for the purposes of this section if he or she is:-

1) A director or shadow director of that company;
2) An associate of such a director or shadow director;
3) An associate of that company.

An individual person is “associated” with another individual if he/she is the spouse of that individual or a relative (siblings, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces or children step children or adopted children) of that individual or in partnership with that individual.

A company is “associated” with another company if the same person has control of both companies. Broadly speaking a person (which includes another company) has “control” of a company if the directors are accustomed to acting on his/her directions or if he/she/it owns more than a third of the voting shares in that company. There are also further rules governing groups of individuals who have linked shareholdings in companies.

If an individual or company is “connected” with the company making the preference then the burden of proof also shifts against the connected party in relation to the other requirements under the section which need to be established for the transaction to be successfully challenged.

>> top

Transactions at an Undervalue (Section 238 Insolvency Act 1986)

You conduct a transaction with any party n which the company receives significantly less, either in money or moneys worth than the value of that which it has released to the other party.

The relevant time period for a transaction at undervalue is the same as for a preference transaction, that is a liquidator or administrator can bring an action in respect of transactions that occurred with 2 year period prior to the date of insolvency in the case of associated parties and 6 months in the case of non associated parties.

The penalties are the same as for preference transactions.

>> top

Misfeasance

When an officer, liquidator, administrator, administrative receiver, manager or promoter of a company breaches their fiduciary duty, by misapplying, retaining or becoming accountable for any money or property of the company.

A liquidator or Official Receiver may bring an action for misfeasance against all or any of the above parties, who if found guilty may be required to repay, restore or account with interest in respect of the money or property misappropriated, or contribute by way of compensation such amount as the court sees fit.

>> top

Transactions Defrauding Creditors

This Section defines actions that are similar to those dealt with in Section 238 Transactions at Undervalue but removes the time limits.

The penalties for successful prosecution by a liquidator, administrator, or supervisor of a voluntary arrangement are broadly in line with those for breach of Section 238.

Coco wrote:

phil5555 wrote:

My T Sharp wrote:The board won't do a jot. It would only be a concern if Warren would have bitten Joe.

I think legally Joe will get his money, and Frank is just probably buying some time before paying him.

Basically 50% of the profits from the Hopkins fight were paid to SN of which 80% were to be paid straight to Joe.

It's a straightforward transaction and the law is in place for the directors to be personally punished and liable if Joe does not get paid.

legally its not Fw who owes him money its sports network...........Joe will get nothing .which is wrong ...but thats the way it works with ltd companys

I'm not familiar with the exact rules/laws the BBBoC abide by but surely they could suspend FW's licence for bringing the game into disrepute.
If a normal promoter did not pay a fighter the board would ban him.

Coco wrote:When FW leant on the board to get Barry Hughes's licence revoked, Kenny Anderson became a free agent, therefore he was in a position to sign for FW
Hughes hasn't even been found guilty yet

G0mez wrote:I bet you a dollar to a dime, that if the two of them never parted ways that this company may still have been operating.

Punchy Joe wrote:Feck off W arren was nowhere near making the Calzaghe Pavlik fight, they were both talking Roy Jones even before Joe left him, revisionist history by old kuntface

Dioufy wrote:Doesn't Calzaghe realise the kudos he would have gotten if he had done the same to Pavlik, something of which I thought he was capable.

streak wrote:Risk/reward and all that bollocks

counter-puncher, you're not CP by any chance?

WildWaylon wrote:
1) The Boxing Board has to take action or they are just as guilty as the party we are discussing. I suppose "pay up when I am forced to" is a good ploy as £2 million earns quite a lot of interest in his high interest bank account.

2) I have never before heard of anyone getting away with not paying after a court has made its
decision so I think Joe must be in a strong legal position. .

phil5555 wrote:
legally its not Fw who owes him money its sports network...........Joe will get nothing .which is
wrong ...but thats the way it works with ltd companys

Counter-puncher wrote:

Dioufy wrote:Doesn't Calzaghe realise the kudos he would have gotten if he had done the same to Pavlik, something of which I thought he was capable.

agreed