Oyster in liquidation

[double u]

..ok, my expertise is in boating, not finance (least of all foreign...), but I'd guess they still paid themselves handsome salaries (or however than goes with companies) when they saw that the ship was going to go under.
& the circumstantial evidence: a crook that would let other people drown on an obviously faulty boat their yard turned out - now wouldn't you expect that they'd be up to some financial mischief too?

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by double u

..ok, my expertise is in boating, not finance (least of all foreign...), but I'd guess they still paid themselves handsome salaries (or however than goes with companies) when they saw that the ship was going to go under.

So the workers should work for free because the company is in financial difficulty? Yes, I'm sure they got a salary. But if that salary was above fair market rates the bankruptcy court will be asking questions. Also note now that the company is in bankruptcy they no longer get a salary at all (assuming this isn't a restructuring and i really don't think this is a restructuring based on the financials).

Originally Posted by double u

& the circumstantial evidence: a crook that would let other people drown on an obviously faulty boat their yard turned out - now wouldn't you expect that they'd be up to some financial mischief too?

How do you know the management KNEW this boat was obviously faulty? Again, it was far more likely to be incompetence vs conspiracy. The management isn't engineering. Engineering/manufacturing likely told them all is fine. Why would they purposely ruin whats left of their company? Further if someone dies and they knew there was an issue, they could face criminal charges. It makes ZERO sense that they knew the keel is faulty yet told the guy to sail around the world. Any way you think about it, fixing a faulty keel would be in the owners/management's best interests.

I could just as well claim the owner purposely damaged the keel because he was upset about the "cosmetic issue". A keel falls off in calm Med waters AFTER crossing an ocean??? I'm not saying that's what happened, but one should consider the possibility likely before assuming a storied yacht builder purposely sent out a boat with a dangerous (life threatening) keel. Do you think all the employees (many of them probably more passionate about sailing than you) would stand idly by knowing someone is sailing with a life threatening keel? Would you?

You only listen to the customer's side and take it at face value without critical thought.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by surf_sail

When you say they "walk away from" I don't think you fully understand bankruptcy.

The owners/equity holders aren't walking away with anything. Bankruptcy will wipe them out. They lose all their shares.

Bankruptcy is there to protect the creditors (employees, customers, warranty claims, and in this case likely banks). The courts will decide how to divvy up the remaining assets to the creditors fairly, but the owners will be left with nothing. That's bankruptcy 101.

So how exactly does your burglary analogy apply here? Where is even a shred of actual or circumstantial evidence of fraud?


P.s. I'm ignoring the limited liability of the shareholders. Their personal assets are protected (just like for you when you buy stocks in your retirement account). Yes, in theory they could have illegally moved assets from the company to themselves - but a U.K. Bankruptcy court will figure that out and can claw it back and file criminal charges. But again there is zero evidence of this happening.

Bankruptcy is a profitable game in the UK.. strip the assets and walk away.
One place I worked a member of the family went bankrupt every 2yrs.. and another took over.. 3yrs and your clean again.

[double u]

"So the workers should work for free " - not the workers, the management lined their pockets (I suspect).
but ok, I admit, never much liked the Oysters (coincidence they were FAR outside my league...)

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Bankruptcy is a profitable game in the UK.. strip the assets and walk away.

One place I worked a member of the family went bankrupt every 2yrs.. and another took over.. 3yrs and your clean again.

Since you are apparently an expert on U.K. Bankruptcy/liquidation/administration, could you explain the difference between US/UK and how "bankruptcy" is profitable for the owners? Thanks.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by surf_sail

Since you are apparently an expert on U.K. Bankruptcy/liquidation/administration, could you explain the difference between US/UK and how "bankruptcy" is profitable for the owners? Thanks.

Making a statement from personal observation does not equate to being an expert in anything other than observation.. contrary to the belief of some.
But.. if you'd rather just listen to yourself I'll shut up..

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by double u

"So the workers should work for free " - not the workers, the management lined their pockets (I suspect).

In many corporations (apparently not in this case) management is different from the owners. Hence, management is often employees/workers like everyone else. In a strict sense, even if they own shares management are always employees/workers.

So your suspicion is based on what other than a general dislike of management and Oysters?

[double u]

& a dislike of a keel falling off a high-end boat!

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by double u

& a dislike of a keel falling off a high-end boat!

Well then I guess you win the argument.

[double u]

peace, surf_sail! this illusion "you pay more-you get more" doesn't like to be killed!

[SnakeEyes]

In this case I think you can be pretty sure the owners, in this case a dutch risk capitalist firm will just write off the loses against other profits and smile all the way to the bank.

The ones that will draw the short straw are the employees, customers, suppliers and creditors.

This is common practice when risk capitalists are involved.

[Sailshabby]

>”hit piece”<? Really??

[boatman61]

Make sure you have no major direct assets in your name then file for bankruptcy..

https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/bankruptcy

Or.. in the case of Phillip Green and BHS.. strip the pension fund of £571,000,000 sell the company to a compatriot for £1 then later settle the pension affair with a payment of £363,000,000.. to save your Knighthood.
A cool £208,000,000 profit and your stooge files for bankruptcy.. one year later he's clean and collects his payoff.

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Make sure you have no major direct assets in your name then file for bankruptcy..



https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/bankruptcy



Or.. in the case of Phillip Green and BHS.. strip the pension fund of £571,000,000 sell the company to a compatriot for £1 then later settle the pension affair with a payment of £363,000,000.. to save your Knighthood.

A cool £208,000,000 profit and your stooge files for bankruptcy.. one year later he's clean and collects his payoff.

FYI in the UK bankruptcy is only for individuals/partnerships. So the link you provide is irrelevant in regards to the Oyster administration. U.K. Corporates use a separate legal construct called liquidation or administration - as a proclaimed expert on the subject I would think you should know that.

So if its as easy as you state to profit off of (personal) bankruptcy. I suggest you get a bunch of loans from banks / credit cards. Transfer your assets to a family member / friend and declare bankruptcy. If you think that will work out well for you, why not stick it to the "evil" banks? Spoiler alert: it won't work out well for you.

In the case of Green it's a classic example of taking one extreme example and then saying that's the norm (we've discussed this trend earlier in this thread). The Green case is quite complicated and we don't have all the facts. I'm sure you don't have or understand all the facts of the case either, but yet you're simply taking the popular narrative and then proclaiming it to be the norm. See a logical fallacy here? It's not much different behavior than the poor sailors that set off, not knowing what they're doing, run aground, break the keel bolts, and then get derided on here for going sailing without knowing what they're doing/talking about...

Adios. This thread is getting pointless.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by surf_sail

FYI in the UK bankruptcy is only for individuals/partnerships. So the link you provide is irrelevant in regards to the Oyster administration. U.K. Corporates use a separate legal construct called liquidation or administration - as a proclaimed expert on the subject I would think you should know that.

So if its as easy as you state to profit off of (personal) bankruptcy. I suggest you get a bunch of loans from banks / credit cards. Transfer your assets to a family member / friend and declare bankruptcy. If you think that will work out well for you, why not stick it to the "evil" banks? Spoiler alert: it won't work out well for you.

In the case of Green it's a classic example of taking one extreme example and then saying that's the norm (we've discussed this trend earlier in this thread). The Green case is quite complicated and we don't have all the facts. I'm sure you don't have or understand all the facts of the case either, but yet you're simply taking the popular narrative and then proclaiming it to be the norm. See a logical fallacy here? It's not much different behavior than the poor sailors that set off, not knowing what they're doing, run aground, break the keel bolts, and then get derided on here for going sailing without knowing what they're doing/talking about...

Adios. This thread is getting pointless.

I have not said it is the norm.. merely pointing out that the laws and loopholes can be exploited with clever lawyers.. that's what loopholes are for.
As for Joe Blogs doing as you suggest.. there's a few who have done just that.. after staging a divorce and the wife getting all the property and assets, car et al.. then maxing out everything they could with an ace credit history, CC's, Bank loans etc for cash.. getting on a plane, flying to the USA, buying a boat and setting off for a life in the tropic's.. but no.. its not the norm but it happens as it did twice at the factory I worked in back in the 70's..
And I wonder about the appreciation on that £571,000,000 over the time it took before he 'settled'..
But hey.. what do I know.. your the expert.