Ten Bobsworth wrote:'The Company's records disclose that the balance outstanding to Mr Anderson as £1.578,042' quite simply means that 'the records' that they refer to had not been updated to show that Ken Anderson had borrowed c. £5million from Eddie Davies to repay Blumarble who were about to foreclose on the debt.
That is clearly what happened and the Administrators knew it.
.
Thank you Bob.
How do you explain this then.
KA made only
ONE claim for secured creditor status - in October 2018.
The Administrator, as you yourself pointed out to me, had noted he was a secured creditor but not for £7.5m has claimed by KA but only for £1,578,042.
Therefore this most have meant the records HAD to have been UPDATED by the time the Administrator was appointed on the 10th June, 2019, some nine months later?
If that is the case, then why was ED's claim for the additional £7.5m secured credit not also recorded, seeing it was made the month earlier?
It simply can't be "clear" as you state, that the records had not been updated and that is what happened because if they HADN'T been updated as you claim, then Anderson would be showing a ZERO secured creditor amount total - and he isn't.
I also question your legal logic in respect of this...
'the records' that they refer to had not been updated to show that Ken Anderson had borrowed c. £5million from Eddie Davies to repay Blumarble
KA is NOT BL, they are separate legal entities.
There is only TWO ways that legally that BL can become part of the transaction between ED and KA to settle BM.
1 - either ED or KA loaned their money to BL to pay BM, or,
2 - either ED or KA entered into a contract with BL to act as their agent to settle the outstanding loan to BM from BL.
Neither apparently were done.
Maybe there was every intent, I don't know,
but this is a now an issue that is being dealt with by the High Court, in relation to the Insolvency Act and there is simply no evidence in law of any loan to BL from ED or KA or a contract which BL is a party of, in any agreement between ED and KA to settle the BM loan.
(And fwiw, you can't make a contract with yourself, so KA couldn't claim that with his BL hat on he had entered into contract with himself to act as BL's agent to settle with BM).
It might well be that some journal entry had not been done, or was awaiting the external accountants visit but there clearly was no money received by BL to fund the settlement of BL as clearly can be evidenced by BL bank statements!
I frequently used to argue with several on here that it wasn't a question of morals what KA should do in the running of a company, it is the question of law that is all that matters.
In law, unless you have proof to the contrary, BL was NOT a party to the settlement of BM by ED and KA and that is why the circa £7.5m secured creditor claims against BL by them simply (in law) did not exist.
I've no idea what you are talking about here...
Your claim that there was some defect in Ken Anderson's right to be repaid is, I fear, based on speculation on your part. Plainly you will have had no access to any loan agreements between the relevant parties.
Clearly I have no access to any loan agreements (do you?), I've never even claimed to have had - but if he had any sort of contract, then he would have legal rights for a 'consideration' accordingly.
What is Consideration?Put simply, consideration is something that has value in the eyes of the law. It is an essential element of forming a valid contract. In practice, this means there must be an exchange of things that have value for a legally binding contract. It is one aspect of the contract forming process and is necessary for every new contract to be enforceable in law.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]As for this...
But this is all a sideshow. When all is said done, the purpose of the discourse is to help explain why Ken Anderson used other means available to him to ensure that he was not massively and unfairly exposed by the Administrators and that any delays in completing a deal with FV weren't the result of any unreasonable conduct or unreasonable claims on his part.
I rather think what most likely happened was the Administrator informed him and EDT of the legality of the situation, which probably then lead to delays in completing with FV whilst KA and EDT resolved their contractual issue away from BL.
I agree totally with all of this -
I have never claimed or even thought that Ken Anderson was a saint who did nothing questionable but he did actually achieve quite a lot in very testing circumstances. Consistently maligned as a liar, I found that most of what he said was actually verifiable but he continues to be the subject of vile abuse not least in the Beeno and Wandererswallys, now featuring the great sage, formerly of this parish, Lusty.Just to annoy everyone else for fun - Wanderlust repeatedly claimed that Anderson had raped and pillaged the club to the amount of £164m in order to enrich himself - which simply never existed (he'd not understood what the accounts were saying and refused to admit he had cocked up!!!).
And maybe I do talk out of my rear end from time to time, but if I do it is because I'm trying to understand what is happening and trying to put forward a logic that could fit the few facts that we do seem to know.
I've certainly no axe to grind with anyone.
Home
