Quote: Adeybull "Sorry but that is all completely wrong.
Don't get hung up on the word "holdings". Bradford Bulls (Holdings) Ltd WAS the trading company. (There is no entity called "Bradford Bulls Holding Company Limited" - and never has been). In this case, the company never was a "holding" company in the more strict sense of the word - it was only ever called "Holdings" as far as I can see because it had subsidiary companies, and I suspect the lottery company had to be a separate legal entity at the time for some reason.
OK Bulls would NOT have had to pay the debts of ANY other entity - be it Bradford Bulls Ltd or Uncle Tom Cobleigh & All Ltd. There is no "legal loophole". There has been no abuse of any "legal loophole". It is perfectly clear everywhere - or should be - what legal entity you are dealing with.
"Bradford Bulls" is anyway just a brand name, and therefore an intangible asset of the entity that owned it. There was and is no legal entity called "Bradford Bulls". Bradford Bulls Ltd is actually the lottery company.
Nothing whatsoever untoward has happened simply because of the word "holdings". Total red herring.'"
Adey,
This is of cause correct, and I wasn’t trying to claim that anything untoward had happened, I was simply trying to point out in layman’s terms the difference between the sporting team Bradford Bulls and the company that runs it – and show how this differentiates between the right to collect a payment for debt from the new co (which you can’t) and the right of the new co to continue the contracts of the old co (which they can) – no easy task and is why the law is so complicated (and lawyers can charge so much).
That said I wasn’t aware that the holding company in this case was in fact the same as the trading name Bradford Bulls, it does make me wonder why bother having a holding company at all but as you say that may be because of the different companies under one “brand” if the lottery and such are separate.
I still stand by my point though that holding companies are generally (though maybe not in this case) a legal loophole to allow debts and liabilities to be hidden in a separate company to what people believe they are dealing with, this of cause is just my opinion and should not be taken as fact. Although it is correct that it was probably clear in most contracts that people are dealing with a holding company your average “mum and dad shop” who (after the taxman) are the ones who are losing out here won’t understand the ins and outs of this and will (again mistakenly) think that the holding company and the trading company are one and the same.
Again, from what you say that wasn’t the case this time (and I don’t know enough of the ins and outs to say otherwise) but my opinion is that generally this is the case, which is why I call it a legal loophole – because its legal but 99% of people won’t understand what is happening.
