Alan Nixon Breaks Silence on American Billionaire Bid

[ThePrisoner]

14 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

If it says it will be available 10 days from the date 14 December, doesn't that mean we can't see it until Chrimbo Eve?

You can view it now. Just means within 10 days. 

[Sussex Ram]

9 minutes ago, Crewton said:

It's a "deemed consent" decision, meaning that a meeting did not have to be held because less than 10% of the creditors in value objected to the proposed decision/Administrators proposals. 

It was made on 1st December. There's no other indication of what those proposals were. They could be a proposal for payment to the various class of creditors. They could be a decision to appoint a liquidator, although I'm doubtful that that would have passed under the deemed consent option this early in the process - but I stress it's not impossible, just unlikely IMHO. 

Thank you, Crewton. I have no idea who you are, but because you said it so confidently and clearly (and I know literally nothing about these processes myself!) I automatically believe what you’re saying is true ? 

Given the document is dated the 3rd Dec, and it became visible on the 15th, is it more likely that the “10 days to view this document” have already passed? And that means no further information will become available on 24th Dec?

If so, maybe we are slightly further on than we thought. If this document is confirmation that DCFC’s creditors agree to the administrators’ proposals, surely that is a huge hurdle overcome? Any company law experts on here able to confirm?

Maybe the meeting today between administrators and supporters groups might be a place where we find out more. Here’s hoping.

Edited December 15, 2021 by Sussex Ram

[strawhillram]

Deemed consent can still be objected to. It just means it hasn’t been formally signed off or approved by the creditors

Edited December 15, 2021 by StrawHillRam

[PistoldPete]

Jackson said on last call that HMRC had not (yet) disagreed with their proposals . Not sure if that counts as deemed consent. 

[Tamworthram]

16 minutes ago, Sussex Ram said:

Thank you, Crewton. I have no idea who you are, but because you said it so confidently and clearly (and I know literally nothing about these processes myself!) I automatically believe what you’re saying is true ? 

Given the document is dated the 3rd Dec, and it became visible on the 15th, is it more likely that the “10 days to view this document” have already passed? And that means no further information will become available on 24th Dec?

If so, maybe we are slightly further on than we thought. If this document is confirmation that DCFC’s creditors agree to the administrators’ proposals, surely that is a huge hurdle overcome? Any company law experts on here able to confirm?

Maybe the meeting today between administrators and supporters groups might be a place where we find out more. Here’s hoping.

You must be new to this forum if you’re going to apply that criteria to all posts by the rest of us. ?

[Crewton]

3 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

You must be new to this forum if you’re going to apply that criteria to all posts by the rest of us. ?

Yeah, I'd always advise people to check out more than one opinion - I'm not an insolvency expert (see @StrawHillRamcomment above which may well be pertinent too).

I'm guessing that further clarity SHOULD be forthcoming from the supporter's group meeting with Quantuma today - fingers-crossed it's positive, but I'd advise caution until we get something certain. Administrations can turn into liquidations very easily and very quickly, but I don't feel that the Admins could move to the nuclear option now because a January fire sale would raise far more with them still searching for a Buyer than if it was done by a Liquidator and that has to be a consideration when looking to get the most money for creditors.

[PistoldPete]

32 minutes ago, StrawHillRam said:

Deemed consent can still be objected to. It just means it hasn’t been formally signed off or approved by the creditors

But it does mean they haven’t formally rejected it either?

[strawhillram]

3 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

But it does mean they haven’t formally rejected it either?

Correct

[strawhillram]

14 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Yeah, I'd always advise people to check out more than one opinion - I'm not an insolvency expert (see @StrawHillRamcomment above which may well be pertinent too).

I'm guessing that further clarity SHOULD be forthcoming from the supporter's group meeting with Quantuma today - fingers-crossed it's positive, but I'd advise caution until we get something certain. Administrations can turn into liquidations very easily and very quickly, but I don't feel that the Admins could move to the nuclear option now because a January fire sale would raise far more with them still searching for a Buyer than if it was done by a Liquidator and that has to be a consideration when looking to get the most money for creditors.

Fingers crossed for something cheery soon. 

[PistoldPete]

17 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Yeah, I'd always advise people to check out more than one opinion - I'm not an insolvency expert (see @StrawHillRamcomment above which may well be pertinent too).

I'm guessing that further clarity SHOULD be forthcoming from the supporter's group meeting with Quantuma today - fingers-crossed it's positive, but I'd advise caution until we get something certain. Administrations can turn into liquidations very easily and very quickly, but I don't feel that the Admins could move to the nuclear option now because a January fire sale would raise far more with them still searching for a Buyer than if it was done by a Liquidator and that has to be a consideration when looking to get the most money for creditors.

January fire sales are not the answer. Selling players for less than they are worth could put buyers off. 

[Crewton]

4 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

January fire sales are not the answer. Selling players for less than they are worth could put buyers off. 

Oh I agree, I'm just laying out what the logical thought process should be and why appointing a liquidator now would be jumping the gun.

[PistoldPete]

6 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Oh I agree, I'm just laying out what the logical thought process should be and why appointing a liquidator now would be jumping the gun.

Yes I cannot see liquidation being very likely and certainly not before the summer. 

[Elwood P Dowd]

The deemed consent procedure is that relevant creditors/contributories are given notice:

Of the matter about which they are to make a decision

Of the decision that is proposed

That if less than the number of relevant creditors/contributories object to the proposed decision, the creditors are treated as having made the decision

That if more than the number of relevant creditors/contributories object to the proposed decision, the decision is treated as not having been made

That if the same decision is sought, it must be using a qualifying decision procedure, and

Of the procedure for objecting to the proposed decision.

The number of relevant creditors is 10% in value.

“Relevant creditors” and "relevant contributories" means creditors/contributories who, if the decision were to be made by a decision procedure, would be entitled to vote.

[Tamworthram]

46 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Yeah, I'd always advise people to check out more than one opinion - I'm not an insolvency expert (see @StrawHillRamcomment above which may well be pertinent too).

I'm guessing that further clarity SHOULD be forthcoming from the supporter's group meeting with Quantuma today - fingers-crossed it's positive, but I'd advise caution until we get something certain. Administrations can turn into liquidations very easily and very quickly, but I don't feel that the Admins could move to the nuclear option now because a January fire sale would raise far more with them still searching for a Buyer than if it was done by a Liquidator and that has to be a consideration when looking to get the most money for creditors.

By the way. I think you're right and I assume you realised it was a joke comment about posts in general (including my own) and not aimed at what you had said.

[Crewton]

20 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

By the way. I think you're right and I assume you realised it was a joke comment about posts in general (including my own) and not aimed at what you had said.

Oh yeah, no problem, I could tell! ?

[kevinhectoring]

I’d guess the unsecured creditors had little option but to accept these proposals. But HMRC is in a different class of creditors and I’d think the admins can’t pick a preferred bidder until they have finalised a deal with HMRC 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

Appears the appeal against the 12 point deduction is still ongoing.  5.15 statement of proposals . Thought they'd given up on that one.  Be interesting to know who us money as well. 

[Carnero]

4 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Appears the appeal against the 12 point deduction is still ongoing.  5.15 statement of proposals . Thought they'd given up on that one.  Be interesting to know who us money as well. 

You're looking at the proposal dated 15 November 2021, we've since withdrawn the appeal.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

7 minutes ago, Carnero said:

You're looking at the proposal dated 15 November 2021, we've since withdrawn the appeal.

I thought we'd binned it off earlier than that.  Got my own hopes up in that case.

[Tamworthram]

37 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I’d guess the unsecured creditors had little option but to accept these proposals. But HMRC is in a different class of creditors and I’d think the admins can’t pick a preferred bidder until they have finalised a deal with HMRC 

Doesn't the notice say that a proposal has been approved by creditors (or 90% of them) which, presumably, includes HMRC?