The UK Babe Channels Forum

(19-06-2018 12:02 )Dave_A Wrote: [ -> ]is it lawful for a LTD company to keep the real owners off of company records submitted to companies house ?

No it isn't lawful. The law was changed in April 2016 to stop companies from doing that. It's now a criminal offence.

(19-06-2018 14:02 )winsaw Wrote: [ -> ]RLC TV LTD is a dormant company so doesn’t operate, so guess the company that actually owns rlc is called something else

Companies house records show RLC TV LTD as being a active company.
The next accounts are due on the 31st of August 2018 .

The nature of the business is described as : 59120 - Motion Picture, video and television programme post production activities
Info here https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09878315


{edit} Just checked and it's the other RLC company that is dormant, the one still owned by Phil Barry
The name of the company is "Red Light Central Limited" , companies house records show the company as being active, but the nature of business is described as: 99999 - Dormant Company,
info here https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07517516

SO where does this leave the company i would agree it is now toxic and wouldn't it with a barge pole but in a legal would anyone else be prevented from making the name their company name because of what has gone on? or would Phil have any right to retain and refuse permission?

Think the name and everything to do with RLC needs to be thrown away and forgotten about.
The Barry's could definitely do a show as there seems to be a lot of girls needing work, but whether they want to is the question, as they sold rlc in the first place.

^ The Barry's are just about the only people who could revive the name (but like you can't see them wanting to as they seem to have new lives now). They are the only people who would have a legit claim on a promise of their shows going back to the old way of being run. I think this is why someone has been trying to pull the wool with rumours of new management and the new broom being associated with those times. This all has the smell of baloney to me.

(19-06-2018 14:02 )winsaw Wrote: [ -> ]little bit more info i have got,

Laura operated rlc through her other company JML productions were she is the sole owner, so basically a management company running the franchise,

Just had a look at the latest available JML Productions LTD key financials(up to 31 August 2017) info here https://companycheck.co.uk/company/09170...financials
The company seems to be doing well to my untrained eye, the last information given shows a quite large increase in Net worth and a increase in assets.
Is this due to Laura operating RLC through this company ?

(20-06-2018 18:54 )Dave_A Wrote: [ -> ]

(19-06-2018 14:02 )winsaw Wrote: [ -> ]little bit more info i have got,

Laura operated rlc through her other company JML productions were she is the sole owner, so basically a management company running the franchise,

Just had a look at the latest available JML Productions LTD key financials(up to 31 August 2017) info here https://companycheck.co.uk/company/09170...financials
The company seems to be doing well to my untrained eye, the last information given shows a quite large increase in Net worth and a increase in assets.
Is this due to Laura operating RLC through this company ?

Hi

I did the same as you and the increase from 2016 to 2017 in net worth is £390K and this is represented by an increase in Current Assets of £283K

Without looking at the full accounts and with a limited understanding of P&L and Balance Sheets I would find it difficult to understand.

Would be nice to get the full explanation as Cash was Nil so what has created Laura's good fortune ?

The summary creates more questions than answers

how long would it take for the tax man to get involved and starts asking serious questions?

https://twitter.com/DEVOSDEVOSI

^would you say that looks dodgy to the trained eye guys? If she ran up debts of over £100,000 where is that shown

I would say something is definitely not quite right