(11-08-2015 14:11 )DB83 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2015 12:36 )circles_o_o_o Wrote: [ -> ]Bex Shiner has tweeted that the producers have been paid now, but not the girls.
There might be some logic in that approach since they need the production staff for Sin3 and those girls will not go back regardless.
But it is still a broken promise. And bad news spreads fast.
the production staff where always going to get there money first as they where directly employed by sin so have a stronger claim to money then there girls who are outside independent contractors and never work for sin directly
(10-08-2015 12:12 )HEX!T Wrote: [ -> ]they would but if they then didnt get paid then any contracts the girls signed would be broken.
the copyright then returns to the girls/girls management company.
its likely the reason the site went off air befor the sky channels did as the site would be infringing copyright by using the girls images to promote sintv.
One of the girls tweeted that photoshoots had all been paid for. It was around the end of June when the payment problems first arose and they hadn't done any photoshots that month.
(11-08-2015 15:58 )winsaw Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2015 14:11 )DB83 Wrote: [ -> ]There might be some logic in that approach since they need the production staff for Sin3 and those girls will not go back regardless.
the production staff where always going to get there money first as they where directly employed by sin so have a stronger claim to money then there girls who are outside independent contractors and never work for sin directly
Yes it's a matter of law, not logic. Employees are preferential creditors and the girls are merely unsecured creditors. Company law says that preferential creditors have to be paid before unsecured creditors.
^^ But the difference between preferred creditors and unsecured creditors is only important when a company is in administration. Unless you know something that the rest of us does not.
True that employees have certain rights under Employment Law but Company Law is different. No. I am not a lawyer and I doubt that anyone else who contributes here is. But I do have some experience in employment and business. Neither, as far as I can recall, cover non-payment. Which would have to be persued under The Law of Contract. I imagine that both standard employees and contractors signed contracts so they would be equal under that law and even if those contracts were by word of mouth they are still valid in the eyes of law.
What you are saying, and this is where it gets silly, is that employees have preference over all unsecured creditors beit satellite leasing, internet charges, rent etc. etc. An active company that chooses to prefer to pay one in preference to another is rolling even more dice.
Now if the company can not meet its debts, and has no reasonable prospect of doing so, it should file for bankruptcy ie put itself in the hands of administrators since continuing to exist in such conditions really is fraudulent.
(11-08-2015 19:24 )DB83 Wrote: [ -> ]Now if the company can not meet its debts, and has no reasonable prospect of doing so, it should file for bankruptcy ie put itself in the hands of administrators since continuing to exist in such conditions really is fraudulent.
Surely to merely exist cannot be fraudulent? If the company was running up additional debts that would be another matter entirely.
(14-08-2015 01:20 )Davy Crockett Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2015 19:24 )DB83 Wrote: [ -> ]Now if the company can not meet its debts, and has no reasonable prospect of doing so, it should file for bankruptcy ie put itself in the hands of administrators since continuing to exist in such conditions really is fraudulent.
Surely to merely exist cannot be fraudulent? If the company was running up additional debts that would be another matter entirely.
If they have longstanding debts they are unable to or refuse to pay they could be forced into administration.
(14-08-2015 07:54 )Tractor boy Wrote: [ -> ]they could be forced into administration.
Someone would have to apply for a court order to force them into administration and in this case I can't see how that would help anyone.
The tax man might be able to do this
(14-08-2015 01:20 )Davy Crockett Wrote: [ -> ]Surely to merely exist cannot be fraudulent? If the company was running up additional debts that would be another matter entirely.
I agree. In order to be deemed fraudulent they would have to be running up further debts whilst being unable to pay their existing debts, which doesn't appear to be the case here since they have closed down their channel.
(14-08-2015 12:09 )biggles Wrote: [ -> ]The tax man might be able to do this
It's not likely. Administration protects the company from aggressive legal action of HMRC. It's something you do to avoid the taxman, not something the taxman does to you. More likely HMRC would look for a winding up order.