(19-07-2015 11:55 )Pixel Wrote: [ -> ]I'm wondering whether these promises to pay people are just a way to fob them off and deflect legal action until they can liquidate the company? Once the company is gone then creditors have nothing to claim money from. That's what any failing company would do and is the main reason limited liability companies are set up.
Looking on the bright side, perhaps they are attempting to pay people in order to salvage their credibility and start again. However, as Elgar said, this will be a substantial sum. I can't think of another reason why they would be genuinely attempting to pay creditors, when the alternative is to dissolve the company and disappear into the night. Therefore I remain deeply sceptical.
This is an interesting post by Pixel. I must admit I've been wondering too if the promises to pay everyone might turn out to be empty promises.
Loaded Magazine is a recent example of the kind of liquidation Pixel is speaking of. After the Loaded TV fiasco built up a lot of debt, the Loaded publishing company was suddenly liquidated. Those going without pay wondered why the magazine was still being published, but another company had been formed so they could carry on with the magazine as though nothing had happened. In this case, the liquidated company was genuinely insolvent though, which is an important point.
Yes, perhaps they are attempting to pay people in order to salvage their credibility and start again. That's certainly possible. But there is another reason why they would be genuinely attempting to pay creditors, which is that perhaps the company is not insolvent at this time. Although they are clearly in a bad way financially, perhaps they are not actually insolvent yet. I mean if they have monies due to them which could be used to pay their debtors, then liquidating the company now could make the directors personally liable for the company's debts.
The principle of limited liability only works to protect directors from being responsible for debts if all the rules of running a limited liability company are followed, and this includes not liquidating the company before doing everything possible to pay its debts. A wrongful liquidation, leaving people unpaid who really could have been paid, would only make the directors personally liable for those same debts.
Surprised it lasted as long as it did. Terrible channel. The girls who are owed have themselves to blame. They should have a sense by now whether or not a channel is doing well and certainly the headline 'launch girls' who could work anywhere, like Kara, should always have asked for money up front. If they didn't, they're fools. They won't see a penny of their money.
(19-07-2015 20:53 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ]<snip>
The principle of limited liability only works to protect directors from being responsible for debts if all the rules of running a limited liability company are followed, and this includes not liquidating the company before doing everything possible to pay its debts. A wrongful liquidation, leaving people unpaid who really could have been paid, would only make the directors personally liable for those same debts.
Thanks Admiral, I'd forgotten that crucial point above. As Sin TV will shortly receive their revenue from the phone company for the first quarter of trading they won't be able to present themselves as insolvent, so they are obliged to use those funds to pay their creditors. Hopefully that means that most girls will receive at least something.
However, Sin may have obligations to banks and other investors, in which case I believe they come first ahead of suppliers (i.e. the babes).
I just read the last few pages of posts and a horrifying thought came to me...
Sin TV sounds to me like something that would happen if a bunch of us disgruntled Forum members -- dissatisfied with the current state of the babeshows -- said,
"F**k it! We can do a better job than them!" ... and started our own Babe Channel.
It has all the hallmarks of someone thinking that everyone else is stoopid and trying to be too cute.
"Hotter girls! Better sets! What could possibly go wrong???"
Too many well-intentioned innovations, too quickly ... before slipping on the painfully obvious banana skin that a more experienced operator knows how to avoid.
It's a cautionary tale. I withdraw my investment. You guys are on your own...!
^^ There is one good reason why they would not want to go in to administration - that is the legal term - at this stage.
They still nurture hopes of making a comeback. Official insolvency could well mean that Ofcom recalls the licence and then that really is it.
But that could be taken out of their hands. If one believes what one hears, they have not paid the rent hence moving out. But they are still liable for that rent and the landlord, or any other major creditor, could well take that action if not paid. That is why administrators are appointed - to look after the rights of all creditors. And, yes, there is a pecking order for settlement - secured creditors first, then preferential (Inland Revenue for PAYE etc.) next with unsecured, and that includes monies due to 'employees', at the bottom of the pile.
(19-07-2015 21:29 )Pixel Wrote: [ -> ] (19-07-2015 20:53 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ]<snip>
The principle of limited liability only works to protect directors from being responsible for debts if all the rules of running a limited liability company are followed, and this includes not liquidating the company before doing everything possible to pay its debts. A wrongful liquidation, leaving people unpaid who really could have been paid, would only make the directors personally liable for those same debts.
Thanks Admiral, I'd forgotten that crucial point above. As Sin TV will shortly receive their revenue from the phone company for the first quarter of trading they won't be able to present themselves as insolvent, so they are obliged to use those funds to pay their creditors. Hopefully that means that most girls will receive at least something.
However, Sin may have obligations to banks and other investors, in which case I believe they come first ahead of suppliers (i.e. the babes).
yep the banks and of course the taxman have priority over the sintv babes & staff with any money that comes into sintv now its shut down. hope the babes & sin staff can get some money once the taxman etc get what they are owed
I think a comeback is very very unlikely myself
^What about paying Sky to go they EPG. I'm sure that's not cheap to go on & what about Freeview they have only jest been put on there.
^^ one would assume that is paid in advance for a contracted period and then renewed.
They have only been on the $ky EPG for a little over two months so I guess that renewal is not yet up.
Come the renewal and not paid = blank screen or removal from the EPG
(19-07-2015 22:40 )Rammyrascal Wrote: [ -> ]yep the banks and of course the taxman have priority over the sintv babes & staff with any money that comes into sintv now its shut down. hope the babes & sin staff can get some money once the taxman etc get what they are owed
I doubt the bank will be a major creditor. They may have a small overdraft facility on their working account but to get anything substantial they would need to present a credible business plan, with figures (not impossible, I suppose) and some sort of security. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility to get an unsecured loan but I suspect the interest rate would be prohibitive.
One of the first in the queue when they get their phone money in will, however, be the Vatman.
Will they get paid some of the money they are owed? Hostel time methinks
