Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)
Comments
-
I can sence a rebellion against AFKA growing on this thread.
This was Henry's sole objective when he started it.
He wants to takeover Charlton life and consign AFKA to the history books.
A sad sad day indeed.2 -
But will the takeover be leasehold or freehold?blackpool72 said:I can sence a rebellion against AFKA growing on this thread.
This was Henry's sole objective when he started it.
He wants to takeover Charlton life and consign AFKA to the history books.
A sad sad day indeed.
And what about the other mods loans?4 -
This thread will not go quietly in the night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the thread.8 -
RD’s loan to CAFC was probably unsecured because he owned everything anyway.LoOkOuT said:
'Permitted Encumbrance' is my new band name.LenGlover said:
I'm no lawyer but the 'directors' loans' are singled out in the new charge agreement as a 'permitted encumbrance.'Cafc43v3r said:
The charge added to the football club today asks more questions than it answers.AFKABartram said:
Explain it, in what sense?Cafc43v3r said:
Its not 100% doneAFKABartram said: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?
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?
ESI have bought the company CAFC with the existing lease and also the debt owed to Staprix The loan now needs to be secured with a charge over all the property leased to CAFC. Normally a lender will not allow any other creditor to have a separate charge on the same property ie an encumbrance to exercising the right to seize the mortgaged property in the event of default.
The charge simply says the secured Director loans,
which are a potential encumberance are exempt from this condition. The terms of the Director loans would seem unaffected.
2 -
His 'sole' objective, you say?blackpool72 said:I can sence a rebellion against AFKA growing on this thread.
This was Henry's sole objective when he started it.
He wants to takeover Charlton life and consign AFKA to the history books.
A sad sad day indeed.3 -
I'd agree apart from the fact that when I worked for a bank and we lent, we would regularly take a 2nd charge over someone's property.Dippenhall said:
RD’s loan to CAFC was probably unsecured because he owned everything anyway.LoOkOuT said:
'Permitted Encumbrance' is my new band name.LenGlover said:
I'm no lawyer but the 'directors' loans' are singled out in the new charge agreement as a 'permitted encumbrance.'Cafc43v3r said:
The charge added to the football club today asks more questions than it answers.AFKABartram said:
Explain it, in what sense?Cafc43v3r said:
Its not 100% doneAFKABartram said: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?
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?
ESI have bought the company CAFC with the existing lease and also the debt owed to Staprix The loan now needs to be secured with a charge over all the property leased to CAFC. Normally a lender will not allow any other creditor to have a separate charge on the same property ie an encumbrance to exercising the right to seize the mortgaged property in the event of default.
The charge simply says the secured Director loans,
which are a potential encumberance are exempt from this condition. The terms of the Director loans would seem unaffected.
We would then give notice to the first charge holder. I don't think the 1st charge holder had any say in the matter.
The first charge holder(s) the ex-directors in this case, would not be effected as they still have first dibs on the security in the event of default.
So as you say the ex-director's position remain unaltered.
Although, this document is saying it is a 1st charge, it records the ex-director's loans as permitted encumbrances.1 -
Great effort @dippenhall at trying to explain it for us simpletons but I still don’t get it. It might need a diagram. Do ESI own the Valley and training ground yet or are we still paying rent to Roland? Is there anything in the legal jargon about a time frame and are ESI legally bound to buy the Valley, training ground. Have they ‘exchanged’ and are waiting to complete (couldn’t resist another house buying analogy)?Dippenhall said:
RD’s loan to CAFC was probably unsecured because he owned everything anyway.LoOkOuT said:
'Permitted Encumbrance' is my new band name.LenGlover said:
I'm no lawyer but the 'directors' loans' are singled out in the new charge agreement as a 'permitted encumbrance.'Cafc43v3r said:
The charge added to the football club today asks more questions than it answers.AFKABartram said:
Explain it, in what sense?Cafc43v3r said:
Its not 100% doneAFKABartram said: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?
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?
ESI have bought the company CAFC with the existing lease and also the debt owed to Staprix The loan now needs to be secured with a charge over all the property leased to CAFC. Normally a lender will not allow any other creditor to have a separate charge on the same property ie an encumbrance to exercising the right to seize the mortgaged property in the event of default.
The charge simply says the secured Director loans,
which are a potential encumberance are exempt from this condition. The terms of the Director loans would seem unaffected.0 -
ESI own the Leaseholds and we are told they have a legally binding agreement to purchase the freeholds.
No one knows what "rent" may be being paid, but we suspect it's a peppercorn (very little).0 -
Clause 9.1.3. places on obligation on the club, at Roland's pleasure, for the club to place a durable nameplate on assets over £100k indicating Staprix has "first fixed charge".Covered End said:
I'm trying to think back to the days when I used to deal with this sort of thing.LenGlover said:
I'm no lawyer but the 'directors' loans' are singled out in the new charge agreement as a 'permitted encumbrance.'Cafc43v3r said:
The charge added to the football club today asks more questions than it answers.AFKABartram said:
Explain it, in what sense?Cafc43v3r said:
Its not 100% doneAFKABartram said: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?
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?
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.
I think that might be news to the ex-directors, who as I understand it have a preceding first fixed charge over all the assets of all three companies. That's one presumption in the debenture I think would be challenged, and I don't think even a second charge could necessarily be achieved without the ex-directors' consent - maybe that depends on the wording of their debentures. I presume given previous discussions, but may be wrong, that they have that veto, in which case it's more than a matter of notification.
1 -
This is all very confusing. Should I be concerned or not?1
- Sponsored links:
-
Fish puns right to the endLeuth said:
His 'sole' objective, you say?blackpool72 said:I can sence a rebellion against AFKA growing on this thread.
This was Henry's sole objective when he started it.
He wants to takeover Charlton life and consign AFKA to the history books.
A sad sad day indeed.1 -
Airman Brown is quoting some of the directors agreement and saying that what ESI and RD have done is not permitted.Covered End said:ESI own the Leaseholds and we are told they have a legally binding agreement to purchase the freeholds.
No one knows what "rent" may be being paid, but we suspect it's a peppercorn (very little).
We need an update of takeover bite sized thread0 -
Did ESI mention a time frame for completing the purchase of Valley and training ground! I was concerned to find out MS’s first interview was misleading, saying they owned the valley but not the training ground. Later it turns out they own neither.2
-
Six months.SouthLincsAddick said:Did ESI mention a time frame for completing the purchase of Valley and training ground! I was concerned to find out MS’s first interview was misleading, saying they owned the valley but not the training ground. Later it turns out they own neither.
They also said four ex directors were happy to roll over the loans while three weren't. No names, other than Murray, in first group, given.
0 -
I'll need to read the 32 pages fully.rikofold said:
Clause 9.1.3. places on obligation on the club, at Roland's pleasure, for the club to place a durable nameplate on assets over £100k indicating Staprix has "first fixed charge".Covered End said:
I'm trying to think back to the days when I used to deal with this sort of thing.LenGlover said:
I'm no lawyer but the 'directors' loans' are singled out in the new charge agreement as a 'permitted encumbrance.'Cafc43v3r said:
The charge added to the football club today asks more questions than it answers.AFKABartram said:
Explain it, in what sense?Cafc43v3r said:
Its not 100% doneAFKABartram said: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?
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?
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.
I think that might be news to the ex-directors, who as I understand it have a preceding first fixed charge over all the assets of all three companies. That's one presumption in the debenture I think would be challenged, and I don't think even a second charge could necessarily be achieved without the ex-directors' consent - maybe that depends on the wording of their debentures. I presume given previous discussions, but may be wrong, that they have that veto, in which case it's more than a matter of notification.
But the ex-directors are listed as Permitted Encumbrancies, which to me means that it is legally documented, that they already hold a debenture.
Ok, I'm not sure whether this is sufficient or whether the the ex-directors should be issued with Deeds of Priority.0 -
has won’t be able to read this in full until tomorrow so it will have to be part of a separate post-takeover thread0
-
Have to say, I quite admire the way ESI just got stuck in and bought the club despite these legal complexities and complications.If they’d ummed and ahed like our antipodean friends we’d all have been driven more round the bend than we already are. Can you imagine two more years of this thread?7
-
Thanks for this clarification @Dippenhall. One thing I don't really get is, if Duchatelet still owns the freehold to the Valley and Sparrows Lane, why does he need a charge over the assets? After all, he owns them.Dippenhall said:
RD’s loan to CAFC was probably unsecured because he owned everything anyway.LoOkOuT said:
'Permitted Encumbrance' is my new band name.LenGlover said:
I'm no lawyer but the 'directors' loans' are singled out in the new charge agreement as a 'permitted encumbrance.'Cafc43v3r said:
The charge added to the football club today asks more questions than it answers.AFKABartram said:
Explain it, in what sense?Cafc43v3r said:
Its not 100% doneAFKABartram said: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?
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?
ESI have bought the company CAFC with the existing lease and also the debt owed to Staprix The loan now needs to be secured with a charge over all the property leased to CAFC. Normally a lender will not allow any other creditor to have a separate charge on the same property ie an encumbrance to exercising the right to seize the mortgaged property in the event of default.
The charge simply says the secured Director loans,
which are a potential encumberance are exempt from this condition. The terms of the Director loans would seem unaffected.
1 -
You say that like it would be a bad thingJamesSeed said:Have to say, I quite admire the way ESI just got stuck in and bought the club despite these legal complexities and complications.If they’d ummed and ahed like ‘our’ antipodean friends we’d all have been driven more round the bend than we already are. Can you imagine two more years of this thread?5 -
How does it work with regards to which company the debentures are secured against? They aren't both on the books of the same trading entity, but in the same group of companies?Covered End said:
I'll need to read the 32 pages fully.rikofold said:
Clause 9.1.3. places on obligation on the club, at Roland's pleasure, for the club to place a durable nameplate on assets over £100k indicating Staprix has "first fixed charge".Covered End said:
I'm trying to think back to the days when I used to deal with this sort of thing.LenGlover said:
I'm no lawyer but the 'directors' loans' are singled out in the new charge agreement as a 'permitted encumbrance.'Cafc43v3r said:
The charge added to the football club today asks more questions than it answers.AFKABartram said:
Explain it, in what sense?Cafc43v3r said:
Its not 100% doneAFKABartram said: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?
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?
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.
I think that might be news to the ex-directors, who as I understand it have a preceding first fixed charge over all the assets of all three companies. That's one presumption in the debenture I think would be challenged, and I don't think even a second charge could necessarily be achieved without the ex-directors' consent - maybe that depends on the wording of their debentures. I presume given previous discussions, but may be wrong, that they have that veto, in which case it's more than a matter of notification.
But the ex-directors are listed as Permitted Encumbrancies, which to me means that it is legally documented, that they already hold a debenture.
Ok, I'm not sure whether this is sufficient or whether the the ex-directors should be issued with Deeds of Priority.
Who would be responsible for the ex directors entitlements and legal rights at the point of sale the purchasers or the vendor? If neither notified or satisfied the ex directors who is liable?0 - Sponsored links:
-
Because ESI have also taken on the debt or some of the debt to Staprix and it would be unsecured without Staprix registering their debenture/charge.Davo55 said:
Thanks for this clarification @Dippenhall. One thing I don't really get is, if Duchatelet still owns the freehold to the Valley and Sparrows Lane, why does he need a charge over the assets? After all, he owns them.Dippenhall said:
RD’s loan to CAFC was probably unsecured because he owned everything anyway.LoOkOuT said:
'Permitted Encumbrance' is my new band name.LenGlover said:
I'm no lawyer but the 'directors' loans' are singled out in the new charge agreement as a 'permitted encumbrance.'Cafc43v3r said:
The charge added to the football club today asks more questions than it answers.AFKABartram said:
Explain it, in what sense?Cafc43v3r said:
Its not 100% doneAFKABartram said: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?
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?
ESI have bought the company CAFC with the existing lease and also the debt owed to Staprix The loan now needs to be secured with a charge over all the property leased to CAFC. Normally a lender will not allow any other creditor to have a separate charge on the same property ie an encumbrance to exercising the right to seize the mortgaged property in the event of default.
The charge simply says the secured Director loans,
which are a potential encumberance are exempt from this condition. The terms of the Director loans would seem unaffected.
The debt being the agreed purchase price I would assume.2 -
@dippenhall what makes you think ESI have taken on the Starprix debt?Covered End said:
Because ESI have also taken on the debt to Staprix and it would be unsecured without Staprix registering their debenture/charge.Davo55 said:
Thanks for this clarification @Dippenhall. One thing I don't really get is, if Duchatelet still owns the freehold to the Valley and Sparrows Lane, why does he need a charge over the assets? After all, he owns them.Dippenhall said:
RD’s loan to CAFC was probably unsecured because he owned everything anyway.LoOkOuT said:
'Permitted Encumbrance' is my new band name.LenGlover said:
I'm no lawyer but the 'directors' loans' are singled out in the new charge agreement as a 'permitted encumbrance.'Cafc43v3r said:
The charge added to the football club today asks more questions than it answers.AFKABartram said:
Explain it, in what sense?Cafc43v3r said:
Its not 100% doneAFKABartram said: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?
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?
ESI have bought the company CAFC with the existing lease and also the debt owed to Staprix The loan now needs to be secured with a charge over all the property leased to CAFC. Normally a lender will not allow any other creditor to have a separate charge on the same property ie an encumbrance to exercising the right to seize the mortgaged property in the event of default.
The charge simply says the secured Director loans,
which are a potential encumberance are exempt from this condition. The terms of the Director loans would seem unaffected.0 -
Cor...ain’t this exciting stuff in a kind of uncomfortable way.1
-
Would speculate that Staprix originally had no security at all and can’t alter the fact that it has an effective second charge after the Director loans. The new charge acknowledges the precedence of the Director loans and their rights are unaffected.Henry Irving said:
Airman Brown is quoting some of the directors agreement and saying that what ESI and RD have done is not permitted.Covered End said:ESI own the Leaseholds and we are told they have a legally binding agreement to purchase the freeholds.
No one knows what "rent" may be being paid, but we suspect it's a peppercorn (very little).
We need an update of takeover bite sized thread
Assume the directors did not acquire any right to approve further charge on the assets. Remember the main debt at the time was a bank loan and that would presumably have prevented further charges on the assets. Not ITK simply trying to see a logical explanation.1 -
The debentures are secured against Charlton Athletic Football Company Limited, because that is what ESI has bought.Cafc43v3r said:
How does it work with regards to which company the debentures are secured against? They aren't both on the books of the same trading entity, but in the same group of companies?Covered End said:
I'll need to read the 32 pages fully.rikofold said:
Clause 9.1.3. places on obligation on the club, at Roland's pleasure, for the club to place a durable nameplate on assets over £100k indicating Staprix has "first fixed charge".Covered End said:
I'm trying to think back to the days when I used to deal with this sort of thing.LenGlover said:
I'm no lawyer but the 'directors' loans' are singled out in the new charge agreement as a 'permitted encumbrance.'Cafc43v3r said:
The charge added to the football club today asks more questions than it answers.AFKABartram said:
Explain it, in what sense?Cafc43v3r said:
Its not 100% doneAFKABartram said: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?
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?
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.
I think that might be news to the ex-directors, who as I understand it have a preceding first fixed charge over all the assets of all three companies. That's one presumption in the debenture I think would be challenged, and I don't think even a second charge could necessarily be achieved without the ex-directors' consent - maybe that depends on the wording of their debentures. I presume given previous discussions, but may be wrong, that they have that veto, in which case it's more than a matter of notification.
But the ex-directors are listed as Permitted Encumbrancies, which to me means that it is legally documented, that they already hold a debenture.
Ok, I'm not sure whether this is sufficient or whether the the ex-directors should be issued with Deeds of Priority.
Who would be responsible for the ex directors entitlements and legal rights at the point of sale the purchasers or the vendor? If neither notified or satisfied the ex directors who is liable?
I would say it is a moot point on who is responsible for the ex-directors loan as of today, because they are repayable if we reach the premier League and by then RD will/ should be long gone.1 -
Sorry, *cough*, sure, it’d be grand.Henry Irving said:
You say that like it would be a bad thingJamesSeed said:Have to say, I quite admire the way ESI just got stuck in and bought the club despite these legal complexities and complications.If they’d ummed and ahed like ‘our’ antipodean friends we’d all have been driven more round the bend than we already are. Can you imagine two more years of this thread?0 -
I would suggest that the debt or part debt is the agreed purchase price.Henry Irving said:
@dippenhall what makes you think ESI have taken on the Starprix debt?Covered End said:
Because ESI have also taken on the debt to Staprix and it would be unsecured without Staprix registering their debenture/charge.Davo55 said:
Thanks for this clarification @Dippenhall. One thing I don't really get is, if Duchatelet still owns the freehold to the Valley and Sparrows Lane, why does he need a charge over the assets? After all, he owns them.Dippenhall said:
RD’s loan to CAFC was probably unsecured because he owned everything anyway.LoOkOuT said:
'Permitted Encumbrance' is my new band name.LenGlover said:
I'm no lawyer but the 'directors' loans' are singled out in the new charge agreement as a 'permitted encumbrance.'Cafc43v3r said:
The charge added to the football club today asks more questions than it answers.AFKABartram said:
Explain it, in what sense?Cafc43v3r said:
Its not 100% doneAFKABartram said: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?
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?
ESI have bought the company CAFC with the existing lease and also the debt owed to Staprix The loan now needs to be secured with a charge over all the property leased to CAFC. Normally a lender will not allow any other creditor to have a separate charge on the same property ie an encumbrance to exercising the right to seize the mortgaged property in the event of default.
The charge simply says the secured Director loans,
which are a potential encumberance are exempt from this condition. The terms of the Director loans would seem unaffected.0 -
Came on here to pay my respects to the dearly deceased as @blackpool72 did only to find that a late recovery had been made and an apparent new lease of life found.
Sorry for the next poor taste but it seems the administrators are threatening to turn this off and family members still feel there are signs of life.
The next 4 hours could be crucial.3 -
I can agree with that but which is it?Covered End said:
I would suggest that the debt or part debt is the agreed purchase price.Henry Irving said:
@dippenhall what makes you think ESI have taken on the Starprix debt?Covered End said:
Because ESI have also taken on the debt to Staprix and it would be unsecured without Staprix registering their debenture/charge.Davo55 said:
Thanks for this clarification @Dippenhall. One thing I don't really get is, if Duchatelet still owns the freehold to the Valley and Sparrows Lane, why does he need a charge over the assets? After all, he owns them.Dippenhall said:
RD’s loan to CAFC was probably unsecured because he owned everything anyway.LoOkOuT said:
'Permitted Encumbrance' is my new band name.LenGlover said:
I'm no lawyer but the 'directors' loans' are singled out in the new charge agreement as a 'permitted encumbrance.'Cafc43v3r said:
The charge added to the football club today asks more questions than it answers.AFKABartram said:
Explain it, in what sense?Cafc43v3r said:
Its not 100% doneAFKABartram said: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?
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?
ESI have bought the company CAFC with the existing lease and also the debt owed to Staprix The loan now needs to be secured with a charge over all the property leased to CAFC. Normally a lender will not allow any other creditor to have a separate charge on the same property ie an encumbrance to exercising the right to seize the mortgaged property in the event of default.
The charge simply says the secured Director loans,
which are a potential encumberance are exempt from this condition. The terms of the Director loans would seem unaffected.
What link is there between the debt run up by Duchatelet and the price to be paid to Duchatelet, if any?
Is it evidenced or just a (reasonable) assumption?0 -
1
This discussion has been closed.
