Don't forget Pussy Galore
Posted via space
Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Off the top of my head he was very sticky in the way he used to run companies, like he used to transfer funds from one of his companies to another on pretty much a gift basis.Originally Posted by Thequeerone
He got done for fraud, which would have been sufficient to lift the veil, as he siphoned about a billion dollars from one company to another....
But it took them years to actually get his because all the wrong things he was doing wasn't sufficient enough to lift the veil and personally prosecute him...
and don't forget he couldn't rember anything then, his memory must have come back because he is in the rich list again
Just a quick note on whether on not rugbywa should be to blame for this...
Firstly, they have nothign to do with the third party sponsorship deals with players...they contract them on their own so that's their own fault.
But on their own sponsorship deal - My understanding for what i've read is that the problems with Firepower have come internally from breaches of directors duties and dodgy dealings. The Board owes a duty of care primarily to its shareholders. Creditors or third party dealings are dealt with via the contracts in place. So yes, it is up to RugbyWA to ensure that their contract has a provision to deal with liquidation or collapse of Firepower, which it did. These clauses are standard now and if not explicitly outlines, implicitly read in by hte courts. The problem is not whether or not RugbyWA secured the sponsorship deal adequately. Firepower is accountable for breach of its contract with RugbyWA. But the problem with civil liability is that the remedies imposed are based on the capacity of the person or entity at fault to pay. Due to Firepowers dodgy dealings they don't in fact have money to pay out the damages owed to RugbyWA.
However, under coporate contracting rules, when a company goes into liquidation creditors and secured third parties are paid out first so if RugbyWA has a hope to get anything, this is the best way to go. Though, it would seem that the financial position of Firepower is such that even this won't leave them much.
In terms of RugbyWA checking to see that Firepower was doing the right things financially, they have absolutely not obligations to do that. More to the point though, such information has a high degree of confidentiality about it and only the most minimum information is available. But, regardless of whether or not RugbyWA kept up to date with the financial records of Firepower, I highly doubt that the directors of Firepower would have put any financial difficulties on the face of the record. In fact, my understanding is that this is one of the grounds the directors are liable for under the current proceedings because they hid such information from their own shareholders.
So in summary, there isn't a lot RugbyWA could actually do. Companies do collapse. It is the unfortunate part of business. The concept of compensation in civil liability cases is problematic and frankly a loop hole in the legal system...one which rugbywa happened to fall into.
"Remember lads, rugby is a team game; all 14 of you make sure you pass the ball to Giteau."
Owner of Sydney Kings faces arrest
Jacquelin Magnay and Gerard Ryle, with Mark Forbes in Bali
June 20, 2008 - 7:00AM
The Sydney Kings have been trading for more than two years while insolvent, prompting the frustrated liquidator of the failed basketball company to start seeking warrants for the arrest of the company owner, Tim Johnston.
The elusive Mr Johnston is also under attack from his Perth-based business partner, Ross Graham, who said yesterday he had invested and loaned Mr Johnston and his Firepower company $20 million over the past 18 months.
Read More
There are relatively few types of business transactions where one party provides security for the fulfillment of its obligations by way of mortgage or bank guarantee, and, historically and practically, sponsorship arrangements don't fall in those few categories.
Before entering into civil litigation the intended plaintiff must make a reasoned business decision based on economic reality; is the intended defendant worth suing?
If the defendant is in liquidation, administration or bancruptcy, then the plaintiff cannot sue anyway, and must leave it to the trustee to acknowledge the debt and to distribute such asset proceeds as exist in order of legal priority.
There is no entitlement to "compensation" in contractual disputes beyond the depth of the pocket of the losing party. There is no "insurer" or fund or government assurance that will guarantee that if you win your case you will get your money. Therefore, to paraphrase the Knight in Raiders of the Lost Ark, you must "choose wisely" who you sue or it will all turn to dust.
Send the bill care of Coach @ TWF Towers thanks Fulv
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
Paid in full already.
Reply With Quote
