BoxRec

SteveDow wrote:I'm actually an insolvency lawyer and although I am not in full possession of all the facts in this case it definitely looks like Warren has delibarately put assets out of the reach of one of his creditors (Joe Calzaghe) which is prohibited under UK insolvency law. You are simply not allowed to wind up one company and move the assets into another thereby removing any obligation you have to pay the people you owe. If this were allowed then we would all do it.

Thanks for giving us an informed view Steve. Looks like this could get really interesting...

Doesn't this news make the case cut and dried then? How can Warren proceed?

RLewis wrote:I asked Kessler about the hand story recently. He told me that he did hurt the hand in sparring. He had it x-rayed but it came up clear, so they assumed it was just bruised. However, he did miss two weeks of sparring. He said it did not affect him in the fight, apart from that his timing was a bit off through lack of sparring.
A few months later, the hand was sore again, he went for a scan and they found a small fracture. He did not use the hand as an excuse for losing.

Sorry,mate.There is no way Gomez will accept this from Kessler,it doent fit his agenda!

So Kessler had a fractured hand and missed his final two weeks of sparring, going into Calzaghe's back yard.

Sure, 'it made no difference' to his performance.

I've got my own sources, whom sparred him in the weeks beforehand. And their take on the injury is radically worse than the one Kessler is sticking to out of dignity.

G0mez wrote:So Kessler had a fractured hand and missed his final two weeks of sparring, going into Calzaghe's back yard.

Sure, 'it made no difference' to his performance.

I've got my own sources, whom sparred him in the weeks beforehand. And their take on the injury is radically worse than the one Kessler is sticking to out of dignity.

So your source is better than Kessler?

G0mez wrote:So Kessler had a fractured hand and missed his final two weeks of sparring, going into Calzaghe's back yard.

Sure, 'it made no difference' to his performance.

I've got my own sources, whom sparred him in the weeks beforehand. And their take on the injury is radically worse than the one Kessler is sticking to out of dignity.

Mate, you've got to give it up on this one

RLewis wrote:I asked Kessler about the hand story recently. He told me that he did hurt the hand in sparring. He had it x-rayed but it came up clear, so they assumed it was just bruised. However, he did miss two weeks of sparring. He said it did not affect him in the fight, apart from that his timing was a bit off through lack of sparring.
A few months later, the hand was sore again, he went for a scan and they found a small fracture. He did not use the hand as an excuse for losing.

Sounds alot more likely than Gomez`s heavilly pro-Froch version

I`ve critisized Calzaghe in the past, so I`m no die-hard Calzaghe fan .. just a boxing fan :

But its very clear Gomez is a die-hard Froch fan. No probs there what so ever. I too have warmed alot to Froch the last few months. He is the best value for money British boxer/fighter out there at the moment imo
But what I find too tiresome is the myth or excuses - which kinda mean the same thing to me - that gets passed about as gospel

ps.
its not any line of attack on you gomez

G0mez wrote:So Kessler had a fractured hand and missed his final two weeks of sparring, going into Calzaghe's back yard.

Sure, 'it made no difference' to his performance.

I've got my own sources, whom sparred him in the weeks beforehand. And their take on the injury is radically worse than the one Kessler is sticking to out of dignity.

I didn't say "it made no difference", I also didn't say he missed the "last two" weeks of sparring. He did say he certainly did not think it was broken (whether it was fractured before or during the fight) and it did not stop him throwing the right hand. I assume had had an injection in it and the right he hurt Joe with in the fourth certainly seemed to show he wasn't lacking power.
To be fair, I have met Kessler several times, including going to his flat in Copenhagen before the Calzaghe fight, so I don't think he was lying to me.

Ive edited my response, because upon reading it back, it appeared like i was far more interested than i actually am !

Calzaghe is a god.

Everyone happy now ?

G0mez wrote:Ive edited my response, because upon reading it back, it appeared like i was far more interested than i actually am !

Calzaghe is a god.

Everyone happy now ?

Ta!

I don't blame Calzaghe taking Warren to court in order to retrieve his 1.8 Mil. Realistically though, Calzaghe has no chance of getting the court to order Frank to pay when it's Sports Network Limited debt. Calzaghe isn't the only person Sports Network Limited owed money too. Franks books will be tighter than a ducks ass.

A friend of mine was looking at bankruptcy and I was looking into the law for her, thinking 'could we pull a fast 1 by having her sign over assets in another name', but there are laws there for the creditors to get these assets/funds back, if this has happened and assets/funds have been inappropriately filtered out of the business. I suppose the argument will be whether Sports Network payments for 'services' to other sister companies are appropriate or not

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:A friend of mine was looking at bankruptcy and I was looking into the law for her, thinking 'could we pull a fast 1 by having her sign over assets in another name', but there are laws there for the creditors to get these assets/funds back, if this has happened and assets/funds have been inappropriately filtered out of the business. I suppose the argument will be whether Sports Network payments for 'services' to other sister companies are appropriate or not

Your right.

Also there is a huge gulf between those who bank roll in the company getting their slice of the pie back, as opposed to those people actually owed payment by the company.

I was involved in a situation that saw a company wound-up 'on paper' yet continued to trade under the same name, at the same premises/address, despite taking suppliers for over £250k.

The winding-up company, was also owned in part, by the owner of the company being wound up.

In a nutshell, the guy was using his own company to strip another company of his.

Companies do it all day long - they run up massive debts with their suppliers, go bust, then continue to trade - and the govt does fook all.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:A friend of mine was looking at bankruptcy and I was looking into the law for her, thinking 'could we pull a fast 1 by having her sign over assets in another name', but there are laws there for the creditors to get these assets/funds back, if this has happened and assets/funds have been inappropriately filtered out of the business. I suppose the argument will be whether Sports Network payments for 'services' to other sister companies are appropriate or not

As I mentioned above, I'm actually an insolvency lawyer and it may be helpful and interesting to you guys if I just summarise what the law says in this area and the likely issues that will be raised in court.

Basically, when a company goes into liquidation/is wound up the court will distribute the assets of that company amongst the creditors of the company. This is done in accordance with an "order of priority" which usually means that secured creditors are paid out first eg: banks who have granted loans to the company and taken security over the company assets (technically called fixed or floating charge holders) and then unsecured creditors, like Joe Calzaghe in this case, would be paid out next. This order of priority is strictly adhered to by the court as there are statutory provisions which impose it.

Sometimes though when the owners of a company know that they owe money to a certain creditor which they do not want to pay they can seek to "get around" these provisions by transferring the assets (which should be distributed amongst the creditors of that company) from the soon to be liquidated company into another company so that they no longer have the means to pay what they owe. However, this, depending on the intention behind it, is illegal and in legal terms is known as "putting assets beyond the reach of creditors."

Without being in full possession of all the facts, I would imagine that this issue of whether Warren was putting assets of Sports Network beyond the reach of Calzaghe (who is clearly a creditor of the company since Sports Network owes him money under a contract) would be the central discussion point in the case. I find it very difficult to believe that there was not wrongdoing on Warrens part here given the timing of the wind up of the company compared with the ruling that he must pay Calzaghe the money.

Anyway, I hope this hasn't bored you guys too much but I just wanted to explain how the process works from a legal perspective.

SteveDow wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:A friend of mine was looking at bankruptcy and I was looking into the law for her, thinking 'could we pull a fast 1 by having her sign over assets in another name', but there are laws there for the creditors to get these assets/funds back, if this has happened and assets/funds have been inappropriately filtered out of the business. I suppose the argument will be whether Sports Network payments for 'services' to other sister companies are appropriate or not

As I mentioned above, I'm actually an insolvency lawyer and it may be helpful and interesting to you guys if I just summarise what the law says in this area and the likely issues that will be raised in court.

Basically, when a company goes into liquidation/is wound up the court will distribute the assets of that company amongst the creditors of the company. This is done in accordance with an "order of priority" which usually means that secured creditors are paid out first eg: banks who have granted loans to the company and taken security over the company assets (technically called fixed or floating charge holders) and then unsecured creditors, like Joe Calzaghe in this case, would be paid out next. This order of priority is strictly adhered to by the court as there are statutory provisions which impose it.

Sometimes though when the owners of a company know that they owe money to a certain creditor which they do not want to pay they can seek to "get around" these provisions by transferring the assets (which should be distributed amongst the creditors of that company) from the soon to be liquidated company into another company so that they no longer have the means to pay what they owe. However, this, depending on the intention behind it, is illegal and in legal terms is known as "putting assets beyond the reach of creditors."

Without being in full possession of all the facts, I would imagine that this issue of whether Warren was putting assets of Sports Network beyond the reach of Calzaghe (who is clearly a creditor of the company since Sports Network owes him money under a contract) would be the central discussion point in the case. I find it very difficult to believe that there was not wrongdoing on Warrens part here given the timing of the wind up of the company compared with the ruling that he must pay Calzaghe the money.

Anyway, I hope this hasn't bored you guys too much but I just wanted to explain how the process works from a legal perspective.

I should probably add that Calzaghe would not be entitled to go after the personal assets of Warren to recover the money unless Warren had signed a guarantee that if Sports Network were to go bust he would personally cover the liability to Calzaghe. I'm certain Warren would not have done this.

I should probably add that Calzaghe would not be entitled to go after the personal assets of Warren to recover the money unless Warren had signed a guarantee that if Sports Network were to go bust he would personally cover the liability to Calzaghe. I'm certain Warren would not have done this.

I know you work for the law but I don't think you're right. He's technically not going after Warren for the money personally. Calzaghe has gotten around that. By taking Warren to court, because Calzaghe thinks Warren moved assets to deliberately put SNL into liquidation. In order for Calzaghe not to be paid. If Warren is found guilty of the crime Calzaghe is accusing him of. Then maybe Calzaghe may reclaim the money from Warren for illegally protecting his assets of his former company. He's not directly taking Warren to court for the money.

What you stated is protection by the law to people who have tried to make a business and failed. It stops failed business men/women being taken to court and losing processions such and houses and cars etc.

If this case carries on the procedure is long and expensive and let's be honest it's one Calzaghe can ill afford..This could be dragged through court after court before it's finally resolved, Let's be honest it makes no difference what people write on here as NO ONE knows the actual facts and all were doing is guessing exactly what is owed and what the full circumstances of it all are...

Bomber 1 wrote:If this case carries on the procedure is long and expensive and let's be honest it's one Calzaghe can ill afford..This could be dragged through court after court before it's finally resolved, Let's be honest it makes no difference what people write on here as NO ONE knows the actual facts and all were doing is guessing exactly what is owed and what the full circumstances of it all are...

Well those involved in the first court case knew the facts Tony and ruled in Calzaghe's favour. What does that tell you?

Deserter wrote:

Bomber 1 wrote:If this case carries on the procedure is long and expensive and let's be honest it's one Calzaghe can ill afford..This could be dragged through court after court before it's finally resolved, Let's be honest it makes no difference what people write on here as NO ONE knows the actual facts and all were doing is guessing exactly what is owed and what the full circumstances of it all are...

Well those involved in the first court case knew the facts Tony and ruled in Calzaghe's favour. What does that tell you?

It tells me that no one won mate cos there in another court room arguing over the same amount of money, This will go on and on and on.. There'll be no end to it.. Calzaghe has't got the funds for a process that could take over a briefs carreer.. It'll be drawn out too long and he'll end up broke..

Bomber 1 wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Bomber 1 wrote:If this case carries on the procedure is long and expensive and let's be honest it's one Calzaghe can ill afford..This could be dragged through court after court before it's finally resolved, Let's be honest it makes no difference what people write on here as NO ONE knows the actual facts and all were doing is guessing exactly what is owed and what the full circumstances of it all are...

Well those involved in the first court case knew the facts Tony and ruled in Calzaghe's favour. What does that tell you?

It tells me that no one won mate cos there in another court room arguing over the same amount of money, This will go on and on and on.. There'll be no end to it.. Calzaghe has't got the funds for a process that could take over a briefs carreer.. It'll be drawn out too long and he'll end up broke..

But the fact that Calzaghe's having to go to extraordinary lengths to try to get the money owed to him doesn't change the fact that a court in possession of the full facts found clearly in his favour and against Mr Warren.

Bomber 1 wrote:
It tells me that no one won mate cos there in another court room arguing over the same amount of money, This will go on and on and on.. There'll be no end to it.. Calzaghe has't got the funds for a process that could take over a briefs carreer.. It'll be drawn out too long and he'll end up broke..

Calzaghe won that court case. The new case is about fWank folding SN and not paying what he was told to pay.

I agree this could bankrupt Calzaghe if it goes wrong. And the lawyers etc could be the real winners. But what would you expect him, yourself or anybody else to do in the same situation? just write off the £1.8 million(or whatever it was)

tonyevs wrote:

Bomber 1 wrote:
It tells me that no one won mate cos there in another court room arguing over the same amount of money, This will go on and on and on.. There'll be no end to it.. Calzaghe has't got the funds for a process that could take over a briefs carreer.. It'll be drawn out too long and he'll end up broke..

Calzaghe won that court case. The new case is about fWank folding SN and not paying what he was told to pay.

I agree this could bankrupt Calzaghe if it goes wrong. And the lawyers etc could be the real winners. But what would you expect him, yourself or anybody else to do in the same situation? just write off the £1.8 million(or whatever it was)

If I thought for 1 min this is gonna bankrupt me I'd be out in a shot.. I personally think Calzaghe should do exactly that.. Wouldn't be nice for the likes of him to come back purely for money cos believe me if this drags on then that's exactly what will happen..

Nightmare Roy wrote:

whatashambles wrote:Can someone explain how when Sports Network, seemingly run by Warren, went out of business he can just continue running allegedly promotions.
Surely you can't run two companies, offset all the debt onto one until it goes into administration and then just continue with the other?

I have a degree in business, believe me if you have a good accountant you can get away with anything in the UK, there are people in this country who earn millions, in some cases billions who will pay less in tax than your post man. In some countries if a company bounces a chq the director can be jailed, but here a limited company can get away with murder.

Thats bollocks.

Bomber 1 wrote:

tonyevs wrote:

Bomber 1 wrote:
It tells me that no one won mate cos there in another court room arguing over the same amount of money, This will go on and on and on.. There'll be no end to it.. Calzaghe has't got the funds for a process that could take over a briefs carreer.. It'll be drawn out too long and he'll end up broke..

Calzaghe won that court case. The new case is about fWank folding SN and not paying what he was told to pay.

I agree this could bankrupt Calzaghe if it goes wrong. And the lawyers etc could be the real winners. But what would you expect him, yourself or anybody else to do in the same situation? just write off the £1.8 million(or whatever it was)

If I thought for 1 min this is gonna bankrupt me I'd be out in a shot.. I personally think Calzaghe should do exactly that.. Wouldn't be nice for the likes of him to come back purely for money cos believe me if this drags on then that's exactly what will happen..

Calzaghe isn`t yet 40yrs old. He has alot of years ahead of him. Of which I hope none are back inside the boxing ring. I`m thinking he probably hasn`t got multi millions to be able to write 1.8million off so easilly.

I agree with you, that the sensible thing could very well be to not risk whatever he already has. But 1.8million or whatever it actually is .. is a very large sum of money to just walk away from. Especially when you know you have been treated very unfairly.

Fwank Warren?




Sorry, but anyone who sides with him on this must be deluded.


THE BOARD OF CONTROL ARE ALSO A BUNCH OF YES MEN, IMO.


I hope JC wins and they take every damn penny FWANK WARREN HAS AND SUSPEND HIM.

Gwann, Calzaghe!

Take every penny he has - every penny!

Fwank hopes JC will walk away from his money? I HOPE FWANK IS FORCED TO HAND HIS LICENSE BACK.