Ruling On Latest Fat Mike Court Case – Still Waiting...

the_paceman

Active Member
The reason they’ve stopped it because they don’t want to lose the megastore if it’s dissolved ownership goes to the crown so it’s in our best interest to stop this from happening and trying to regain control of our club shop
If that’s the case, why did they not reply to the strike off threat 3 months ago??
 

Greebo

Well-Known Member
It was/is a joint venture. At a guess - and it’s nothing more - I’d suggest it was being compulsory struck off due to the absence of records and documents being filed as and when due. That could have been stopped because someone (presumably SDI) has filed up to date records. They may, or may not, have done so as a result of or as part of the ongoing dispute.

Whether that’s good or bad is anyone’s guess. We are all just indulging in guesswork here.
Pretty much my take on it.

The only thing which makes any of this interesting is the coincidences.

We are told the Judge's ruling has been made, the following day the megastore is closed and has remained closed, the day after that the compulsory dissolution is suspended.

Not enough to come to a conclusion but a bit of a stretch to think it's all coincidental.
 

jweebear

Well-Known Member
Pretty much my take on it.

The only thing which makes any of this interesting is the coincidences.

We are told the Judge's ruling has been made, the following day the megastore is closed and has remained closed, the day after that the compulsory dissolution is suspended.

Not enough to come to a conclusion but a bit of a stretch to think it's all coincidental.
Store closed on the 7th June, the dissolution of RR was stopped on the 8th June, yip nothing in it at all
 

BrownBrogues

Well-Known Member
The hold on the dissolving of RRL is most likely linked to Rangers counter claim against Sport Direct for withholding the money due as a result of of termination of the 7 year notice period deal. That is an absolute shambles of a Company with phantom shares being issued, one party having a majority say over the other.. I don’t believe any Judge would consider it legally sound. In fact I think he would be more inclined to criticise Sports Directs practices like the previous Judge noted.
 

Gramps1

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
This puzzle is coming together, fat man has possible moved out the megastore, the previous joint retail venture maybe about to be restarted. Rangers takeover the megastore sell all the new Hummel stock and Ashley gets his slice of all the sales? Could we live with that if it stops all litigation and is time limited to say, 5 years?
Not a fucking chance
 

aclark

Well-Known Member
A lot of speculation, both positive & negative around. Does anyone actually know when the judges ruling will be made public?
 

Greebo

Well-Known Member
No they were warned of a strike off about 3 month ago
Can you say where you got that from, it doesn't appear to be on the Companies House page. It only has the notice dated 21st May from what I can see. The previous item is July 2018, the accounts.
 

EndOfDays

Well-Known Member
The reason they’ve stopped it because they don’t want to lose the megastore if it’s dissolved ownership goes to the crown so it’s in our best interest to stop this from happening and trying to regain control of our club shop
Rangers Retail don't own the megastore so that's a lot of shite.
 

the_paceman

Active Member
Can you say where you got that from, it doesn't appear to be on the Companies House page. It only has the notice dated 21st May from what I can see. The previous item is July 2018, the accounts.
You get a couple of warnings before you get to the official strike off threat which is posted at companies house. It’s just like you getting a warning letter telling you to pay or they will take you to court for non payment. I know from experience as my wife had similar issue when she had her clothing manufacturing company
 

Greebo

Well-Known Member
You get a couple of warnings before you get to the official strike off threat which is posted at companies house. It’s just like you getting a warning letter telling you to pay or they will take you to court for non payment. I know from experience as my wife had similar issue when she had her clothing manufacturing company
Thanks, I've never been involved in anything like that.
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
Any involvement RRL had should have come to an end with the settlement of the derivative claim brought by SDI along with the settlement of all the original dispute.

RRL’s last accounts in 2018 confirm that the company ceased trading altogether on 20th June 2017. A dividend of about £600k was paid out that financial year, and subsequent to the financial year end but before the lodging of the accounts, a further dividend of over £1m was paid out. The net profit for that last accounting period was about £1m, so it looks like all of the cash was paid out of the company long ago. Again, I would think that happened at the point of the settlement of the various claims in

Generally you would only bother to keep a dormant company alive if you have a claim against it, it is sitting owning some property, or you want to use it to make a claim.

I don’t think there’s a claim against it since it looks like the money has been paid out. There shouldn’t be any claims to be made by the company either since the settlement that resulted in it ceasing trading was in full and final settlement of all claims.

The application was under s1000(3) which means the company registrar asked whether the company was operational and either didn’t get replies or got a reply to the effect it wasn’t operating. (I think I’d previously misread that as s1003, which would be the company itself applying for strike off - but that isn’t the case.)

It’s not very clear what’s going on.

From the 2017 accounts it had been intended to keep the company alive but dormant rather than strike it off, so it may be this is just tidying up the error of allowing it to get this far with the registrar?

Is RRL technically still the tenant in the lease of the store? If they are then the lease would fall if they were struck off - so it could maybe just to keep things correct re that?
 
Top