der Berliner 3,325 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 HMRC could have made it plain from February onwards that they will not support a CVA. They waited till May, which cost the oldco a fortune. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 HMRC could have made it plain from February onwards that they will not support a CVA. They waited till May, which cost the oldco a fortune. They waited till there was a CVA proposal and decided it held no value. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,325 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 They waited till there was a CVA proposal and decided it held no value. Their statement made it clear that they would not have agreed to any CVA proposal though, which is the point. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 that's almost 100p in the pound for real debt. I should think a much smaller number would have tempted them. The big tax case was clearly being considered, totals in the CVA report showed that. You really need to stop avoiding that elephant in the room. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 They waited till there was a CVA proposal and decided it held no value. Their statement clearly indicated amounts weren't the main issue. Like I said, their heads may have been turned if it had been about 50 million and close to paying them back in full but we'd have needed a Sheik type bidder for that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 The big tax case was clearly being considered, totals in the CVA report showed that. You really need to stop avoiding that elephant in the room. as a speculative value yes. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Their statement made it clear that they would not have agreed to any CVA proposal though, which is the point. Had it been in their interests to approve a CVA then they would have, it wasn't so they didn't. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 dB has said it for me. Things change, the 'no one holding more than 15%' will fluctuate, hard to see how it wouldn't with all the hue and cry surrounding us. Some people are bound to bail out coz of that/failed CVA. CG may not be keeping us absolutely up to date on everything, but he's a damn sight better than Whyte or SDM ever were, and light years ahead of the regulatory bodies. I really hope he's the real deal. Tired of being let down. edit: sorry, I missed two pages after dB's post. This seems a bit surreal now. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 perhaps green is just befuddled in old age. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Had it been in their interests to approve a CVA then they would have, it wasn't so they didn't. TBK's CVA was not in their interests either. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.