rlThe form of return that every insolvency practitioner has to submit to the Insolvency Service regarding the conduct of each director of an insolvent company.rl

Posted so people can see that the report that Guilfoyle has to make is probably not at all what most people assume, or might have been led to expect.

This is a statutory report, which has to be completed in every case for every insolvent company. Nothing in any way special about Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd.

Since it is intended to be used, where necessary, as a basis for bringing criminal proceedings against a delinquent director (i.e. disqualification) (and/or likely to be used in evidence in any action for recovery of funds etc against the director by the IP? FA advise?) then I rather doubt this would become a public document?

Can't see any way that the NON-DIRECTOR honorary chairman of a DIFFERENT company would have any rights to see the report on the conduct of a director of another, legally-unconnected company? And as a sitting MP, he would anyway need to be seen to uphold the highest moral standards, would he not? And I must say that in various meetings with him since his involvement, he has only ever come across to me as genuine, honest and thoroughly reasonable and responsible.

AS MB said earlier, all we are likely to learn is what parties close to the affair, and maybe with axes to grind and scores to settle, choose to tell us. Unless of course criminal action for disqualification is brought against any former director of BBH Ltd - the possibility of which is IMO very remote indeed.

As I understand it paying the overdraft off was main use (along with paying one of the tax bills) made of the 500k raised from us. Seem to remember that hood and Bennett couldn't stand down as directors until their PGs were discharged by the overdraft being cleared but this then left club with no operating capital. Hence the need for advances of the sky monies to pay the wages.

Thankfully it's not my case and you're quite correct as to the law not preventing companies with joint management/shareholding trading with each other. My point was that when one of these companies goes into admin or liquidation, the transactions between the two will be scrutinised for any evidence of possible irregularities. Such evidence maybe the purchase of goods at inflated prices or the sale of goods at particularly low prices.

Or, the sequence of events allowing directors to discharge PGs as FA refers to.

Pure suposition but imagine the following conversations:

Scene one - Bank

Bank Manager 1 " Why goodness me George the Bradford Bulls account seems to have received a substantial sum of readies from someone living at "the Red Shed" or some plebian name like that"
Bank Manager 2 " While my word, I know those golly good sorts down at HQ have spent the last ten years telling us to give money to any one asked, but apparenently there was a bit of an incident and now we are not to lend money to anyone"
Bank manager 1 " While that was fortuitous just as the nice Bull chaps have gone into credit for the first time since that nice Welsh gentleman deposited a postal order in 1963 - we better remove their overdraft facitlity pretty sharpish eh!"

Scene 2 - large hole in Ground in South Bradford
Peter " Oh ****"
Another " What can be the matter Peter?"
Peter " We don't have any money and that squad of ours need paying at the end of the month"
Another " Well do you have any fans left or did they all follow that nice Mr Mcbanana chap to Hull"
Peter " I saw some last week - do you think they could give us some money?"

And the rest - as we know is history

I think standard end of admin form is to:

1) Check enough money to cover fees
2) If surplus after fees - then invoice more fees
3) print standard word doc about having taken lots of time checking conduct of directors and found nothing - then post 2nd class

Believe me if they thought anything could have been easily recovered from the directors as a result of their actions they would have done - but this is very, very rarely the case and they would have needed to have been caught taking cash out of the till.