Interested to hear how this new charge can be consistent with the above from the existing ones - and for avoidance of doubt there is no such prior written consent.
Obviously I understand everything but for the benefit of those not as intelligent as me, could someone kindly explain what exactly has happened / been confirmed today?
Obviously I understand everything but for the benefit of those not as intelligent as me, could someone kindly explain what exactly has happened / been confirmed today?
The takeover is only partly done and this thread must not die.
Obviously I understand everything but for the benefit of those not as intelligent as me, could someone kindly explain what exactly has happened / been confirmed today?
I have to explain to @Redmidland so if someone could translate into "stupid" I'd appreciate it too.
Obviously I understand everything but for the benefit of those not as intelligent as me, could someone kindly explain what exactly has happened / been confirmed today?
Looks like we’re being a bit hasty with this closure. So many questions still be answered.
So ESI now own the Leaseholds of The Valley & Training ground as we had assumed.
Starprix have an outstanding loan to ESI which is secured by a debenture.
If my lifetime of banking serves me well, that debenture is a second charge, which ranks behind the first charge, director's debenture(s).
Yeah I think that the 32 page document setting up a charge on Sparrows Lane in particular prevents Duchatelet from selling or otherwise damaging the freehold asset until it is transferred to ESI. Only skimmed it on my phone mind.
I doubt it. Staprix have the charge as security for their loan to ESI.
Presumably, ESI repay the loan when purchasing the freehold.
Obviously I understand everything but for the benefit of those not as intelligent as me, could someone kindly explain what exactly has happened / been confirmed today?
Obviously I understand everything but for the benefit of those not as intelligent as me, could someone kindly explain what exactly has happened / been confirmed today?
Its not 100% done
Explain it, in what sense?
It was never going to be 100% done until the later freehold purchases, which have been well discussed. What is new today?
Obviously I understand everything but for the benefit of those not as intelligent as me, could someone kindly explain what exactly has happened / been confirmed today?
Its not 100% done
Explain it, in what sense?
It was never going to be 100% done until the later freehold purchases, which have been well discussed. What is new today?
I'm not sure there's anything new, but have only skimmed the 32 pages.
Obviously I understand everything but for the benefit of those not as intelligent as me, could someone kindly explain what exactly has happened / been confirmed today?
Its not 100% done
Explain it, in what sense?
It was never going to be 100% done until the later freehold purchases, which have been well discussed. What is new today?
The charge added to the football club today asks more questions than it answers.
How is it legally valid if it contradicts the exdirectors loans?
Of course this isn't a problem if they have been paid up, or given written permission, but @Airman Brown is saying he knows they haven't.
Obviously I understand everything but for the benefit of those not as intelligent as me, could someone kindly explain what exactly has happened / been confirmed today?
Its not 100% done
Explain it, in what sense?
It was never going to be 100% done until the later freehold purchases, which have been well discussed. What is new today?
The charge added to the football club today asks more questions than it answers.
How is it legally valid if it contradicts the exdirectors loans?
Of course this isn't a problem if they have been paid up, or given written permission, but @Airman Brown is saying he knows they haven't.
I'm no lawyer but the 'directors' loans' are singled out in the new charge agreement as a 'permitted encumbrance.'
If there is no change to the status of the 'directors' loans' why would written permission be necessary?
Obviously I understand everything but for the benefit of those not as intelligent as me, could someone kindly explain what exactly has happened / been confirmed today?
Its not 100% done
Explain it, in what sense?
It was never going to be 100% done until the later freehold purchases, which have been well discussed. What is new today?
The charge added to the football club today asks more questions than it answers.
How is it legally valid if it contradicts the exdirectors loans?
Of course this isn't a problem if they have been paid up, or given written permission, but @Airman Brown is saying he knows they haven't.
I'm no lawyer but the 'directors' loans' are singled out in the new charge agreement as a 'permitted encumbrance.'
If there is no change to the status of the 'directors' loans' why would written permission be necessary?
I'm trying to think back to the days when I used to deal with this sort of thing.
I'm thinking that if we took a 2nd charge (which I think Staprix have done), you had to give notice to the holder of the 1st charge(s).
So in this case Staprix should give notice to the ex-directors that they have taken a 2nd charge.
If the security needed to be relied upon the ex-directors would be paid before Staprix.
You couldn't give notice until the 2nd charge had actually been registered, so the notices should be received in due course.
However, it looks like the document is calling this a 1st charge and they are calling the ex-director loans Permitted Encumbrances.
Comments
Interested to hear how this new charge can be consistent with the above from the existing ones - and for avoidance of doubt there is no such prior written consent.
https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-live.ch.gov.uk/docs/r3dh6vA-dvdWtaDiq6VdcBf_sy9wzrBaRJN_kixH584/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAWRGBDBV3O6WV6PED/20200127/eu-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20200127T142539Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=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&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=670ebc0cd2a3ce5bc078e91d447cb0191db825cd870c0d4e9e5c32ef93e8e065
Presumably, ESI repay the loan when purchasing the freehold.
It was never going to be 100% done until the later freehold purchases, which have been well discussed. What is new today?
How is it legally valid if it contradicts the exdirectors loans?
Of course this isn't a problem if they have been paid up, or given written permission, but @Airman Brown is saying he knows they haven't.
If there is no change to the status of the 'directors' loans' why would written permission be necessary?
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01788466/officers
I'm thinking that if we took a 2nd charge (which I think Staprix have done), you had to give notice to the holder of the 1st charge(s).
So in this case Staprix should give notice to the ex-directors that they have taken a 2nd charge.
If the security needed to be relied upon the ex-directors would be paid before Staprix.
You couldn't give notice until the 2nd charge had actually been registered, so the notices should be received in due course.
However, it looks like the document is calling this a 1st charge and they are calling the ex-director loans Permitted Encumbrances.