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

[I.am.Sam]

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.

yeah this been happening for few months

so going under but then trying to take money and pay debt and digging deeper holes until he caved

business gone wrong or a scam from the start

 

[Username:]

Apparently it is a voluntary liquidation, whatever that means.

Scott messed up badly. I think it started out with the intension to use other people's money to bankroll a failing business. His intent was probably that he will put the money back as soon as the failing business is back on track. I have seen with attorneys and trust accounts.

It started off innocently but ended with lots of people losing a lot of money. His dealing in the end was unethical and criminal.

Now obviously he has no means of paying anyone back any money, and the legal consciousness of the illegal dealings is not a nice place to be, so to try and rid himself of the responsibility to deal with this he is claiming liquidation - hoping to walk away from all this Scott free. Sadly, with the state of our legal system this is probably what will happen.

 

[I.am.Sam]

and yeah by the looks of things he made a good penny over the last few months as he was still taking orders

 

[Snotface]

Because these items were paid upfront, "bought" by SSS, doesn't that technically mean that the items do not belong to his company?
At what point does it change from fraud to theft? If someone steals something, your course of action is to lay a charge at a police station and go after the person criminally. Voluntary liquidation, with a "Sorry guys" email, finders-keepers attitude, smells funny to me, but i'm not a lawyer.

 

[calypso]

Apparently it is a voluntary liquidation, whatever that means.

The only evidence that this voluntary liquidation is taking place is because Scott said so. He has also proven himself to be a liar, thief, scam artist. So until I see paperwork to back up this liquidation, I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

FYI - The batteries are still for sale on Amazon. Surely these are part of liquidation stock? Or just a chance to take in more suckers?

 

[neoprema]

I never used the services so can't give much opinion on this other than what i think everyone has said.

My 2c - however, the website is still showing in-business? Surely if its under liquidation it should be replaced with anything other than business as usual? A message to say operations are temporarily suspended... or something?

 

[Rickster]

It's sad to see a [good] business go down like this.

 

[Suspect99]

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.

I never said its to cover personal debts. he's selling the customers orders to cover his companies debts. Like the loans and customs bills

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

Sad to see this schit storm. I almost feel for the guy, took a gamble on the battery thing and it flopped spectacularly when LS stopped and demand dropped. But it shouldn't have been funded with other people's money from a business that was working perfectly fine...

 

[BBSA]

I purchased a battery for him, and after approximately a year, it started having issues. He managed to fix it, so I must acknowledge his efforts. I had to take the battery to a private home, giving me a feeling that I was dealing with a Spaza shop.

I pity the folks who bought batteries from Scott. They're on their own if anything goes wrong from now on.

 

[agnouja]

Website is still up with no statement about the liquidation. FB profile shows TEMPORARILY CLOSED with comments talking about the liquidation now hidden.

 

[SlinkyMike]

It's either or. Embezzlement is when you misappropriate funds without approval, for example as an employee or as a CEO without the boards approval for personal financial gain.

I'm leaning towards misappropriation of funds, which probably falls under fraud?

Right, yes I was speaking about this with someone last night and they corrected me similarly: "Embezzlement is a kind of misappropriation..."

If it's all traded under one legal entity there is nothing legally wrong with "transferring" funds.

True but it is handles as a loan from one legal entity to another. You can't just mash the peas in with the potatoes and call it soup.

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.

Actually here is only self gain in that example, but I get your meaning and you are correct.

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.

yeah this been happening for few months

so going under but then trying to take money and pay debt and digging deeper holes until he caved

business gone wrong or a scam from the start

For entrepreneurs or prospective entrepreneurs reading this thread:

1. 30 day cash flow - understand what this means!
2. Working capital - understand what this means!
3. Learn about the challenges of growth and the risks of doing so too quickly.

 

[Baxteen]

so many personal attacks on the man in this thread.

warranted or not, that is not how you deal with a situation like this.


no on deserves attacks like this and you guys need to check your words because the wheel will turn and you will be in a situation like this at some point...

 

[soulie]

Hes using the term Liquidation loosely , its a long costly process and first inline after the registration of intent is SARS , untill its been registered as aliquidation and is searchable on the list for July ,it hasnt happened .hopefully it gets sorted and he gets up again

 

[sjm]

Apparently it is a voluntary liquidation, whatever that means.

Voluntary liquidation is when the company realizes that it is insolvent (cannot pay all debts with all its assets) and declares insolvency, resulting in liquidation. This is a legal expectation of company directors (you may not continue trading if you are insolvent, you have to liquidate).

Involuntary liquidation (the other type of liquidation) is not driven by the company but by the creditors. If they are not getting paid and believe the company is insolvent, they can apply to a court to have the company liquidated.

 

[rh1]

You only going to get @PaulMurkin the gerkin giving his emotional anecdotes here. The way he has been defending @ScottulusMaximus one would swear they are sleeping together.

Who are you to deny their true love cock block them?

 

[sjm]

Because these items were paid upfront, "bought" by SSS, doesn't that technically mean that the items do not belong to his company?
At what point does it change from fraud to theft? If someone steals something, your course of action is to lay a charge at a police station and go after the person criminally. Voluntary liquidation, with a "Sorry guys" email, finders-keepers attitude, smells funny to me, but i'm not a lawyer.

No. I spoke to this earlier. If the company is invoiced for something and pays for it, that thing belongs to the company. If you've been invoiced for it and paid for it, the company owes you the item (or the money) until the point where they provide one or the other. If a company is liquidated then everything it owns is now used to pay back all creditors, there's no direct apportioning of the items that it owns to individual creditors.

This sucks for all creditors and I feel for those whose money has gone, but the legal requirements in this situation mean that anyone who had paid joins the creditors' queue and waits to get their money back. Should the liquidators manage to salvage more from the company's assets than it owes, everyone gets their money back and shareholders get the remainder. Usually though there isn't enough money available (the root cause of the liquidation) and disbursement of the available funds is done in a prescribed order. SARS gets its money first, then banks and other secured creditors. Unsecured creditors (such as the people who placed orders) are third and then shareholders / investors are last.

 

[PaulGherkin]

Voluntary liquidation is when the company realizes that it is insolvent (cannot pay all debts with all its assets) and declares insolvency, resulting in liquidation. This is a legal expectation of company directors (you may not continue trading if you are insolvent, you have to liquidate).

Involuntary liquidation (the other type of liquidation) is not driven by the company but by the creditors. If they are not getting paid and believe the company is insolvent, they can apply to a court to have the company liquidated.

Declaring voluntary liquidation is far better than the involuntary process, because that's when the sheriff of the court comes to take your stuff.
I experienced that once at my very first job. Went to work, had no idea the business was in the hole it was in, and by lunchtime they had taken half the equipment away and I was then told "sorry no money for you this month"

 

[sjm]

The only evidence that this voluntary liquidation is taking place is because Scott said so. He has also proven himself to be a liar, thief, scam artist. So until I see paperwork to back up this liquidation, I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

FYI - The batteries are still for sale on Amazon. Surely these are part of liquidation stock? Or just a chance to take in more suckers?

Whoever is managing the liquidation (can't remember what they're called, in banking it would be a curator) could decide to carry on selling the batteries, if the battery stock is available and they determine that it is the best way to convert them to cash. They would have to be satisfied that the company can fulfill all its obligations related to the customers (so for instance, if the batteries are in Amazon's warehouses, Amazon will handle fulfillment and the company just gets paid the proceeds then they should continue selling the batteries to get more money). They would however need to make sure that customers are aware of the business conditions surrounding the sales (i.e. that the company is being liquidated, what that means for warranties etc) but if they can sell to fully informed customers, it would be their duty to do so.

They need to maximize the money they can make from the available assets, so as to be able to pay back as many creditors as possible.

I'm not sure if this is what's happening or if this is just a case of the battery sales not having been taken down. Keeping them on sale is not a decision that Scott should be making, it's a decision that the curator(s) should make once they have a full handle on everything.

 

[agnouja]

Surely the initial transaction between customer and agent (SSS) outweigh any intermediary logistics? Customer paid in full with their own delivery address thus it can be proven the items belonged to them. Customer didn't pay to acquire inventory for SSS.