Quote: Adeybull "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 since.'"
You don't think it's a legitimate enquiry of a sitting MP to find out what happened to hundreds of thousands of pounds of money donated by his constituents? Or, for that matter to act on behalf of a constituent who may have been a creditor? Far from it being irresponsible, I'd suggest it's his job to try and find out what happened.
I take your point about the document forming the basis of any potential prosecution but I find it hard to believe these documents are meant to be kept secret indefinitely. Were the DTI not to recommend prosecution what would be gained?