I hope that those who ran Sin TV (not the production Staff, but the owners) are arrested and charged with fraud and banned from all business activities for a long time.
At the same time I guess there is very little the girls themselves can do to get what they are owed and also what people can do to claim back the charges if they called the show, not knowing that the company was run the way it was.
Funny thing is Sin TV still shows up on my Free view TV as having a slot!!
I do not see why a channel like Storm or RLC makes better use of it if HMRC WERE to seek a winding up order.
(15-08-2015 05:36 )babelover48 Wrote: [ -> ]I hope that those who ran Sin TV (not the production Staff, but the owners) are arrested and charged with fraud and banned from all business activities for a long time.
Why, what frauds have they committed? Contrary to what you seem to think, going bust is not in itself fraudulent. It's commonplace. In fact statistics show that the majority of businesses go bust. This isn't even the first babe channel to go bust.
^^ What about engaging staff (production and models) in the knowledge that funds would not be available to pay them at the due time ?
(15-08-2015 13:18 )DB83 Wrote: [ -> ]^^ What about engaging staff (production and models) in the knowledge that funds would not be available to pay them at the due time ?
Welcome to Cameron's Britain!
Ahh, to be honest it's part of human nature to take advantage of other people for financial gain.
It's not pleasant, it's not nice but there you go.
Some people are shitty.
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.
[/quote]
I meant take them to court not administration - and it wouldn't protect them as you say the taxman would issue a winding up order or liquidation and would become a preferential creditor, also they could take them to court preventing them from being future company directors. There is no protection in the UK unlike the USA where Chapter 11 would protect them whilst re-structuring.
(15-08-2015 13:18 )DB83 Wrote: [ -> ]^^ What about engaging staff (production and models) in the knowledge that funds would not be available to pay them at the due time ?
Far too theoretical. Nobody would be interested in pursuing such a case. It would be impossible to prove.
Staff being paid late is not exactly unusual.
^^ Well it is a wild theory but still not impossible to prove.
If a serious fraud is involved then all financial records would have to be turned over.
Ok. This is not, before you pull me up on this, a serious example and they well know that no one will have the financial clout to sue them.
Yes. It is not unusual for staff to be paid late but just remember that everyone was promised payment in three weeks. So they knew their liabilities then and they should have had a pretty good idea of the expected revenue coming in.
To make such a promise - in fact a false promise - is playing heavy with the emotions of those who have been taken for a ride.
The relationship between employer and employee is built, other than what is written in the formal contract, is built on trust.
Trust that the employee will work in the manner he or she promised verbally or in writing and trust that the employee will be duly rewarded by the employer in a reasonable time.
(15-08-2015 05:36 )babelover48 Wrote: [ -> ]I do not see why a channel like Storm or RLC makes better use of it if HMRC WERE to seek a winding up order.
As we have no evidence to suggest that Sin TV owe HMRC anything, there's not much to be gained at the moment by further discussion of what HMRC would or wouldn't do in such an eventuality.
^^ Now if I read it correctly ANY creditor owed £750 or more can apply to the court for a Company Winding Up Order.
And methinks we know a few in that position.
The down-side are the total costs for the court petition which will exceed £2000(before legal costs are considered) which will put most small creditors off. So, apart from HMRC, only those with financial clout such as $ky, possibly the landlord (who might have been paid by now) and some others would contemplate such an action.
Also. There is little to no point in such an action if the company has no assets if the point was to attempt recovery. Only really a satisfaction of closure and possibly barring a director from holding such office in the future.
But I said this before and no harm repeating it with regards to the above costs. If you have 10 or more people with such a grievance, they should simply get together, pool their resources, and think about it. Each could probably afford £200 and then nominate one person to proceed on their behalf.
Unless they are about to get paid in the next three weeks
