Aiden Earley banned as a directo.r

[forlanssister 3,050]

From the Insolvency Service.

 

http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/IESdatabase/viewdisqualdetail.asp?courtnumber=05763437

 

Intriguingly he's still listed as a Director of Sevco 5088 Ltd

 

https://www.duedil.com/company/08011390/sevco-5088-limited/people

 

Case details for AIDEN CHAN EDMUND EARLEY

Name: AIDEN CHAN EDMUND EARLEY

 

Name: Wood Hall Realisations Limited

 

Date of Birth: 24/01/1967

 

Date Order Starts: 23/07/2013

 

Disqualification Length: 5 Years 0 Month(s)

 

CRO Number: 05763437

 

Last Known Address: Mitchley, 21 Traps Lane, , , New Malden, KT3 4RU

 

Conduct: 1. Mr Earley acted at the risk, and to the ultimate detriment of, the creditors of Wood Hall Realisations Limited (“Wood Hall”), particularly HM Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”), in that on 26 November 2007, the date upon Wood Hall was placed into a Members Voluntary Liquidation (“MVL”), Wood Hall transferred all of its assets to connected companies with consideration being deferred and no security provided. No payment was received for these assets, as a result of which Wood Hall’s creditors incurred losses of at least £836,004. In particular: • On 26 November 2007 he swore a declaration of solvency which showed that Wood Hall had assets of £1,305,403, liabilities of £786,512, and therefore had a surplus of assets of £518,891; • On at least 11 October 2007 the directors of Wood Hall decided to enter Wood Hall into an MVL. On 26 November 2007, Wood Hall transferred the assets, but none of the HMRC liabilities to newly formed companies of which he was a director; • The terms of the transfer stated that consideration for the assets was to be deferred, with the purchase price to be paid by no later than 12 months less 10 days from the date of the commencement of the MVL, with the purchase price to be left outstanding as an interest free loan due by the connected companies • Wood Hall did not obtain security from the connected companies, and Wood Hall had no mechanism through which to receive payment if the assets were sold to a third party; • One of these connected company’s most valuable assets were then transferred to connected parties shortly after the date of MVL, for either no consideration or limited consideration; • The connected companies failed to pay for the assets purchased from Wood Hall and consequently Wood Hall was placed into Company Voluntary Liquidation (“CVL”) on 17 December 2008, with a deficiency to creditors of £836,004 As a result of his decision on 26 November 2007 creditors ultimately received no payment in respect of their liabilities totalling at least £836,004, whilst he retained control of the assets of Wood Hall which he valued at £1,027,000. 2. He acted at the risk, and to the ultimate detriment of, the creditors of C4E Realisations Limited (“C4E”), particularly HMRC, in that on 26 November 2007, the date upon which C4E was placed into a MVL, C4E transferred all of its assets to a connected company with consideration being deferred and no security provided. No payment was received for these assets, as a result of which C4E’s creditors incurred losses of at least £622,363. In particular: • On 26 November 2007 he swore a declaration of solvency which showed that C4E had assets of £450,000, liabilities of £367,369, and therefore had a surplus of assets of £82,631; • On at least 11 October 2007 the directors of C4E decided to enter C4E into an MVL. On 26 November 2007, C4E transferred the assets, but none of the HMRC liabilities to a newly formed company of which he was a director; • The terms of the transfer stated that consideration for the assets was to be deferred, with the purchase price to be paid by no later than 12 months less 10 days from the date of the commencement of the MVL, with the purchase price to be left outstanding as an interest free loan due by the connected company. • C4E did not obtain security from the connected company, and C4E had no mechanism through which to receive payment if the assets were sold to a third party; • The connected company failed to pay for the assets purchased from C4E and consequently C4E was placed into CVL on 17 December 2008, with a deficiency to creditors of at least £622,363; As a result of his decision on 26 November 2007 creditors ultimately received no payment in respect of their liabilities totalling at least £622,363, whilst he retained control of the assets of C4E which he valued at £450,000. 3. He acted at the risk, and to the ultimate detriment of, the creditors of Set Meals Realisations Limited (“Set Meals”), particularly HMRC, in that on 26 November 2007, the date upon which Set Meals was placed into a MVL, Set Meals transferred all of its assets to a connected company with consideration being deferred and no security provided. No payment was received for these assets, as a result of Set Meal’s creditors incurred losses of at least £608,787. In particular: • On 26 November 2007 he swore a declaration of solvency which showed that Set Meals had assets of £461,567, liabilities of £391,571, and therefore had a surplus of assets of £69,996; • On at least 11 October 2007 the directors of Set Meals decided to enter Set Meals into an MVL. On 26 November 2007, Set Meals transferred the assets, but none of the HMRC liabilities to a newly formed company of which he was a director; • The terms of the transfer stated that consideration for the assets was to be deferred, with the purchase price to be paid by no later than 12 months less 10 days from the date of the commencement of the MVL, with the purchase price to be left outstanding as an interest free loan due by the connected company. • Set Meals did not obtain security from the connected company, and Set Meals had no mechanism through which to receive payment if the assets were sold to a third party; • The connected company failed to pay for the assets purchased from Set Meals and consequently Set Meals was placed into CVL on 17 December 2008, with a deficiency to creditors of £608,787. As a result of his decision on 26 November 2007 creditors ultimately received no payment in respect of their liabilities totalling at least £608,787, whilst he retained control of the assets of Set Meals which he valued at £461,567. 4. He caused Wood Hall, C4E and Set Meals, collectively referred to as the (“Companies in Liquidation”), to enter into a series of transactions which exposed the Companies in Liquidation’s creditors, particularly HMRC, to the risk of non-payment whilst he retained control and benefit of the assets of the companies, in that on 26 November 2007, the date upon which the Companies in Liquidation were placed into MVL, the Companies in Liquidation transferred their assets to connected companies (“the Purchasing Companies”), being by way of a number of separate agreements in terms of which: • All tax liabilities including, Corporation Tax, Value Added Tax (“VAT”), Pay-As-You Earn (“PAYE”) and National Insurance Contributions (“NIC”), together with any penalties or interest arising in connection with them, were excluded (and therefore remained in the Companies in Liquidation). The Companies in Liquidation had been in correspondence with HMRC since from, at latest, November 2006 concerning arrears and stage payments, on 23 October 2007 HMRC warned of winding-up proceedings against the Companies in Liquidation, with the declarations of solvency for the Companies in Liquidation showing a cumulative liability of £1,530,452; • Consideration was deferred with the purchase price to be paid by no later than 12 months less 10 days from the date of the commencement of the MVL; • The purchase price be left outstanding as an interest free loan due by the Purchasing Companies; The assets were transferred to the Purchasing Companies notwithstanding that: • No definitive advice had been obtained by the Companies in Liquidation from its advisors before embarking on the reorganisation of the group and the subsequent transfer of the assets to the Purchasing Companies; • He was a director of the Companies in Liquidation and the Purchasing Companies; • The Purchasing Companies were newly incorporated companies; • Except for loan notes, which were initially secured by way of a debenture in favour of Wood Hall but later transferred, there was no provision for security by the Purchasing Companies notwithstanding that the consideration was deferred; The Purchasing Companies most valuable assets were transferred to connected parties shortly after the date of MVL. The Purchasing Companies failed to pay for the assets purchased from the Companies in Liquidation and consequently the Companies in Liquidation were placed into CVL on 17 December 2008, Wood Hall with a deficiency to creditors of £836,004, C4E with a deficiency to creditors of £622,363 and Set Meals with a deficiency to creditors of £608,787.

 

This information is correct as at 20/09/2013

[der Berliner 3,245]

And that is relevant because ... some people think that Sevco 5088 has still some connection to Sevco Scotland alias Rangers Football Club International PLC or deals with Charles Green (who has left the ship? Stuff going on in the shadows behind our backs and all?

 

Hm ... only time will tell.

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

And that is relevant because ... some people think that Sevco 5088 has still some connection to Sevco Scotland alias Rangers Football Club International PLC or deals with Charles Green (who has left the ship? Stuff going on in the shadows behind our backs and all?

 

Hm ... only time will tell.

 

I may be wrong but was Sevco 5088 not listed in the Rangers share prospectus?

[der Berliner 3,245]

I may be wrong but was Sevco 5088 not listed in the Rangers share prospectus?

 

You are not wrong, they were listed in the Prospectus' 1st edition, as D&P agreed to sell to that company. Yet, it was, on the technicality that Rangers FC as a Scottish club should be owned be a Scottish company (whereas Sevco 5088 was incorporated in England) and were eventually sold to Sevco Scotland instead. Green apparently used Sevco 5088 to con Whyte to part company with his ownership of Rangers and questions hang about that, at least from Whyte's point of view. At the end of the day, you have to find out how much worth* the prospectus has when it comes to the final dealings between Oldco/D&P and the buyers. What we know is that Sevco Scotland and its heirs bought Rangers FC et al, not Sevco 5088, even though to some it is not as clear-cut. Be that as it may, this fact stands until someone proves it technically or legally wrong. (Which I would assume would have been done by any malcontent by now ... and that list is not short when it comes to us.)

 

 

*Edit: They may have on the day of the prospectus had a legally-binding agreement with Green to sell it to Sevco 5088, but in my humble and utterly (in such matters) uneducated guess, D&P made a binding agreement with Green and his backers rather then the vehicle they would use for the purchase.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

rangers own sevco 5088 i believe and early is a director of sevco 5088.

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

You are not wrong, they were listed in the Prospectus' 1st edition, as D&P agreed to sell to that company. Yet, it was, on the technicality that Rangers FC as a Scottish club should be owned be a Scottish company (whereas Sevco 5088 was incorporated in England) and were eventually sold to Sevco Scotland instead. Green apparently used Sevco 5088 to con Whyte to part company with his ownership of Rangers and questions hang about that, at least from Whyte's point of view. At the end of the day, you have to find out how much worth* the prospectus has when it comes to the final dealings between Oldco/D&P and the buyers. What we know is that Sevco Scotland and its heirs bought Rangers FC et al, not Sevco 5088, even though to some it is not as clear-cut. Be that as it may, this fact stands until someone proves it technically or legally wrong. (Which I would assume would have been done by any malcontent by now ... and that list is not short when it comes to us.)

 

 

*Edit: They may have on the day of the prospectus had a legally-binding agreement with Green to sell it to Sevco 5088, but in my humble and utterly (in such matters) uneducated guess, D&P made a binding agreement with Green and his backers rather then the vehicle they would use for the purchase.

 

I'm at work so can't double check apologies I may be wrong but I'm sure Sevco 5088 was listed as an asset of Rangers which to me means Rangers own Sevco 5088

[der Berliner 3,245]

You find bits and pieces in the Annual Report 2013 on page 45

 

On 14 June 2012, Sevco 5088 Limited entered into agreements for no consideration to legally reassign its beneficial interest in funding placing letters held and to novate the trade and assets purchase agreement with RFC 2012 plc (in administration), to Sevco Scotland Limited (now The Rangers Football Club Ltd).

 

Independent Investigation

On 15 April 2013, the Board of RIFC plc announced that it was commissioning an independent examination and report relating to allegations made by Craig Whyte, the previous owner of Rangers Football Club plc, concerning RIFC’s Chief Executive and Commercial Director. A letter before claim was received by the Company from legal advisers to Craig Whyte and Aiden Early. The Company engaged the services of Allen & Overy LLP to defend against this possible claim. In addition, the non-executive directors of the Company (the "Investigation Committee") engaged the law firm Pinsent Masons LLP to investigate the connections between Craig Whyte and former and current personnel of the Company and its subsidiaries (the "Investigation").

 

The Investigation was overseen by Roy Martin QC.

 

On 30 May 2013, the Company announced that the Investigation had been concluded on 17 May 2013 and Pinsent Masons and Roy Martin QC have reported to the Investigation Committee. The Investigation Committee is satisfied that a thorough investigation was conducted despite the inherent limitations of a private inquiry.

 

Based on the assessment of the available evidence, the Company considers that the Investigation found no evidence that Craig Whyte had any involvement with Sevco Scotland Limited (now called The Rangers Football Club Limited), the company which ultimately acquired the business and assets of The Rangers Football Club plc from its administrators; nor which would suggest that Craig Whyte invested in The Rangers Football Club Limited or Rangers International Football Club plc, either directly or indirectly through any third party companies or vehicles.

 

Maybe the (legal) devil lies within the detail, as we use to say. Thus far, we can only wait and see if anything comes of that, but as its stands, neither Whyte or Early will be looked upon kindly by any judge or jury, however impartial the latter may be.

[forlanssister 3,050]

You are not wrong, they were listed in the Prospectus' 1st edition, as D&P agreed to sell to that company. Yet, it was, on the technicality that Rangers FC as a Scottish club should be owned be a Scottish company (whereas Sevco 5088 was incorporated in England) and were eventually sold to Sevco Scotland instead. Green apparently used Sevco 5088 to con Whyte to part company with his ownership of Rangers and questions hang about that, at least from Whyte's point of view. At the end of the day, you have to find out how much worth* the prospectus has when it comes to the final dealings between Oldco/D&P and the buyers. What we know is that Sevco Scotland and its heirs bought Rangers FC et al, not Sevco 5088, even though to some it is not as clear-cut. Be that as it may, this fact stands until someone proves it technically or legally wrong. (Which I would assume would have been done by any malcontent by now ... and that list is not short when it comes to us.)

 

 

*Edit: They may have on the day of the prospectus had a legally-binding agreement with Green to sell it to Sevco 5088, but in my humble and utterly (in such matters) uneducated guess, D&P made a binding agreement with Green and his backers rather then the vehicle they would use for the purchase.

 

It's relevant because RIFC plc claims that Sevco 5088 Ltd is a subsiduary of RIFC plc.

 

It's relevant because Craig Whyte and Aiden Earley have issued a letter before claim to RIFC plc claiming ownership of Sevco 5088 Ltd .

 

It's relevant because Aiden Earley is listed as a Director of Sevco 5088 Ltd whilst being banned from holding any company directorship.

 

I see you're still blindly following Green's pish re 5088 ltd and Scotland, Sevco 5088 Ltd was incorporated in Wales not England.

[Calgacus 8]

It's relevant because RIFC plc claims that Sevco 5088 Ltd is a subsiduary of RIFC plc.

 

It's relevant because Craig Whyte and Aiden Earley have issued a letter before claim to RIFC plc claiming ownership of Sevco 5088 Ltd .

 

It's relevant because Aiden Earley is listed as a Director of Sevco 5088 Ltd whilst being banned from holding any company directorship.

 

I see you're still blindly following Green's pish re 5088 ltd and Scotland, Sevco 5088 Ltd was incorporated in Wales not England.

 

At the risk of being pedantic England and Wales are one jurisdiction under Company Law and the main office for Companies House is in Cardiff

[forlanssister 3,050]

At the risk of being pedantic England and Wales are one jurisdiction under Company Law and the main office for Companies House is in Cardiff

 

As is Scotland in regards to the Companies Act which makes the claim even more spurious.