Scott's Shipping Services - FORMERLY UNDER "POSSIBLE LIQUIDATION"

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is something called reckless trading, when a company trades whilst technically insolvent. Not sure whether this applies to private companies. It certainly does for listed companies. Directors can be held personally liable.
 
Embezzlement is a stretch of the imagination. That would be the secret taking of money from ones employer for self gain, or, if you are one of a few owners, taking money to fund your own business that they are not part of (which would be self gain also). If he is the sole owner of both, there is no self gain.

Depending on the type of company, liability is limited unless negligence can be proven. Not all bad decisions are made out of negligence.
 
acidrain said:
Embezzlement is a stretch of the imagination. That would be the secret taking of money from ones employer for self gain, or, if you are one of a few owners, taking money to fund your own business that they are not part of (which would be self gain also). If he is the sole owner of both, there is no self gain.

Depending on the type of company, liability is limited unless negligence can be proven. Not all bad decisions are made out of negligence.
Click to expand...

He borrowed from peter to pay paul. You can replace Peter and paul with scott to make it easier to understand
 
Enzo Matrix said:
He borrowed from peter to pay paul. You can replace Peter and paul with scott to make it easier to understand
Click to expand...
That one side and just a matter of opinion...

or

he took money out of one company to fund another. Not uncommon practice and if it's loaded as a loan account on the books, as the accountants probably would've done, then whats the issue?
 
Whether its misappropriation, embezzlement, fraud or breach of contract probably lies in proving intent of his actions and how much money was involved. But its certainly more than financial problems.
 
acidrain said:
That one side and just a matter of opinion...

or

he took money out of one company to fund another. Not uncommon practice and if it's loaded as a loan account on the books, as the accountants probably would've done, then whats the issue?
Click to expand...

Search a few pages back, in the other thread. I recall a statement to the effect of "the companies were supposed to be split, but I (he) never got round to it". Never attribute to malice, that which can be explained by stupidity...
 
Gordon_R said:
Search a few pages back, in the other thread. I recall a statement to the effect of "the companies were supposed to be split, but I (he) never got round to it". Never attribute to malice, that which can be explained by stupidity...
Click to expand...

Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed…
 
ScottulusMaximus said:
1. I did not lie about my shoulder or my trip, the delays caused affected this but were not the base reason.
2. All items ordered were purchased from the sellers.
3. All delivery updates sent were correct and factual.
4. There was full intent to deliver all orders but this is no longer possible.
4. This is a voluntary liquidation, there is no order enforcing it (please research voluntary liquidation, it is a legal requirement for a business, not a cut and run).

Scott
Click to expand...
So we can come and pick them up, foregoing the delivery?
 
Gordon_R said:
Search a few pages back, in the other thread. I recall a statement to the effect of "the companies were supposed to be split, but I (he) never got round to it". Never attribute to malice, that which can be explained by stupidity...
Click to expand...
Ok sure, not an ideal situation then but only because liabilities are not seperated and one could collapse the other. Stupidity is a bit of a harsh term to use for that. Bad decision, maybe, lack of oversight is probably a more appropriate term.
 
Snotface said:
So we can come and pick them up, foregoing the delivery?
Click to expand...
Na, its a voluntary liquidation like he said, Hes sellling all the business assets ( your orders ) to pay his debts. Unfortunately hes decided that the customers that paid him are the lowest priority and he will use the money he got from them to pay off his debts.
 
Last edited:
Suspect99 said:
Na, its a voluntary liquidation like he said, Hes sellling all the business assets ( your orders ) to pay his debts. Unfortunately hes decided that the customers that paid him are the lowest priority and he will us the money he got from the to pay off his debts.
Click to expand...
I think you have this quite wrong.
When a company is liquidated, it's assets are sold to pay off it's debts. He may be liable for damages and such, but the debts of the company and his personal debts are actually separate. In the past, with close corporations it was possible to nearly completely isolate yourself from the company's undoing.
 
Apparently it is a voluntary liquidation, whatever that means.
 
Priapus said:
You okes are now just guessing what really went down lol.
Click to expand...
Yes, we can only guess, based on his responses.

Took money while knowing company was going under. From my perspective, not a lot of guesswork. I had a friend who pulled the same stunt except the impact was different.

He took deposits for wedding bookings at his venue, and it was shut down shortly after. Not only money lost, but wedding plans. Goddamn these people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X