The UK Babe Channels Forum

so this stuff is getting a bit wack.

did bangbabes just give up or where they killed off.

(19-01-2011 14:30 )chrislatimer Wrote: [ -> ]did bangbabes just give up or where they killed off.

They hadn't paid their fine so OFCOM brought a winding-up petition against them, so effectively they went bust

(19-01-2011 15:42 )mr williams Wrote: [ -> ]

(19-01-2011 14:30 )chrislatimer Wrote: [ -> ]did bangbabes just give up or where they killed off.

They hadn't paid their fine so OFCOM brought a winding-up petition against them, so effectively they went bust

i say both or suicide.

£100k+ fine which bang could not afford or be bothered to pay so ofcom issued the petition. ofcom issued the fine that they knew would put bang out of business. bang broke the ofcom "rules" for their daytime shows.

so bankruptcy ?

if they went into bankruptcy of their own will they have to pay ofcom a large chunk of the fine.

if its forced bankruptcy less so.

makes you wonder doesnt it, bangbabes had been going for years and they couldnt afford a £100+ grand fine??? maybe these channels dont make as much money as you/me might think?

Final idle speculation from me.

Perhaps Bang looked at the fine and loss of licences, and decided they had a big target on their back and would just attract more sanctions even if using someone elses licence. Sometimes you have to face up to reality and accept that you have reached the end of the road.

(16-01-2011 12:30 )admin Wrote: [ -> ]

(13-01-2011 00:49 )Matt63 Wrote: [ -> ]at which moment their bank or banks would have frozen all their bank accounts.

No, not true. The case is scheduled to be heard in the High Court on 26 Jan 2011. As the case has therefore not been heard at this time, it follows that the judge will not have ordered any bank accounts to be frozen.

(13-01-2011 00:49 )Matt63 Wrote: [ -> ]If anyone wishes to purchase assets from the liquidator, they would need to move very quickly...

No liquidator even exists at this time since the case hasn't yet been heard, so he won't yet be selling anything currently belonging to Bang. Again, The case is scheduled to be heard in the High Court on 26 Jan 2011.

Thanks admin, I've only just seen your reply. It is of course great news that creditors are being paid.

What normally happens is these sort of circumstances that a bank holding a debenture would normally appoint its own receiver before the High Court Hearing. That way the bank, as a secured creditor, gets its money from debtors before any unsecured creditors get paid.

However I had not spotted that, despite the negative net worth, Bang Media did not have a debenture as it did not have an overdraft. This is unusual, but does explain why their bank would see no need to protect their position as there was no position to protect!

(19-01-2011 16:11 )chrislatimer Wrote: [ -> ]so bankruptcy ?

if they went into bankruptcy of their own will they have to pay Ofcom a large chunk of the fine.

if its forced bankruptcy less so.

I'm no liquidator but as I understand it;

Point of order:- A firm going 'bust' or 'bankrupt' is a commonly used term but in the UK it should strictly be used to refer to inability of one individual or partnership to pay their debts where as being 'in liquidation' is the correct term for a company that can't pay its debts and is being wound-up.

Liquidation can be compulsory or voluntary (a company is forced to be wound-up or they decide to wind-up by themselves by potitioning Companys House) but generally a company that decides for itself to wind-up is referred to as 'having entered liquidation by way of The Companies Act'.

A trustee when appointed who is either a single receiver who acts for all creditors (when financial re-structuring is taking place) or a liquidator who collects together all the assets of the company and settles all claims against the company by its creditors (potentially with 3rd party receivers).

The liquidator will follow a pecking order of who gets what money and when which in the case of Bang could result in Ofcom getting nothing as a fine resulting from a legal prosecution by the crown or other governmental body (e.g. HM Revenue & Customs) would actually be quite a way down the list of creditors (those who are owed by the company).

A Receiver may be appointed to work to reclaim assets\collateral for the interest of a single secured creditor (groups 1-3 in the pecking order I've described below) and\or maintain any assets until they can be sold off and the proceeds returned to the liquidator.

If a receiver has been appointed solely to work on behalf of one creditor they would obtain a receipt from the liquidator for the monies they recovered and have returned to them the amount their creditor is owed (sometimes less it all depends on what was agreed with the liquidator) upon which that creditor is removed from the proceedings.

The order in which creditors are paid would look like this (first paid through to last paid);

1. The liquidators themselves (a fee for their services) - They wouldn't work for free after all!

2. Fixed charge creditors (those who hold assets of the firm in security for services\roles provided in the running of the business) - these could be people\firms who hold assets in lieu of payment for a service and who the liquidator agrees can sell the asset and return all or part of the proceeds for further dispersal to other creditors. What is paid back to the liquidator is normally any proceeds minus an agreed sum which represents monies owed to the individual creditor.

3. Preferential creditors (those who are owed money but hold no property or securities of the firm) - These are more often than not simply employees who were not paid their salaries or those owed for services rendered. They may not receive all that they were owed as commonly some funds are ring-fenced for further dispersal to unsecured creditors (see below).

What is left or set-aside at the start of the process is then put into what is known as a 'ring fenced fund' which goes on to be paid to;

4. Unsecured creditors (debts to the Crown or other remuneration owed to employees that isn't categorised as salary) - In the case of Bang this could mean any taxes or fines levied against them (such as the Ofcom fine) prior to the start of liquidation proceedings.

5. Shareholders (if any) - any remaining collateral can then be paid to shareholders that may be due as a result of unpaid dividends.

In the case of Bang if they had no money and no assets they will realistically be put into compulsory liquidation by companies house (something others have reported has already taken place), a liquidator assigned the pecking order to pay-off any creditors followed.

If Bang truly had no assets or funds at the time they started to be wound-up they really won't be paying anyone anything and that would be the end of it all (dissolution).

If the owners of the company had bankruptcy protection granted to them creditors would be unable to pursue them in the hope of seizing personal property\benefits etc.

A liquidator could however still find evidence of wrongful trading (where the owners know they can't pay their debts but carry on trading anyway), of which if they are found guilty their protection will be revoked and their personal property\benefits could be seized following successful legal action against the owners. Lastly a charge of fraudulent trading could be raised as a result of evidence being found of illegal activities which could result in a criminal prosecution against the company owners.

(19-01-2011 23:12 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Final idle speculation from me.

Perhaps Bang looked at the fine and loss of licences, and decided they had a big target on their back and would just attract more sanctions even if using someone elses licence. Sometimes you have to face up to reality and accept that you have reached the end of the road.

I'd describe this idle speculation as more like a theory from Inspector Clouseau than from Sherlock Holmes.

Stop teasing us admin, tell us what happened you swine


Pretty please