Sea Ventures UK liquidated and restarted

dunedin said:
Yes, incredible to describe as “continued success” - and very distressing to the poor creditors.
Presumably if this same “success” “continues” then we can confidently expect the new company to successfully go insolvent again very soon.
Click to expand...
Yes, they're being a little silly. They should be telling prospective customers that they aren't the old company but a completely new and fresh operation unsullied by the past and they hope to make the best of their new situation with a clean start.

One point that strikes me is that the website says the new company is at addresses at Swanwick and Noss-on-Dart. The administrator's filing says the old company owed over £135,000 to their landlords, presumably at Swanwick and Noss, and that the new company was expected to occupy premises at both marinas under 'a licence to occupy . . . for a period until 30 November 2025 whilst negotiations with the landlord of the property are progressed'.

Wearing my business hat, we are landlords of commercial premises. If one of our tenants went bust owing us a six-figure sum the 'negotiations' with a successor company would be - let's say - interesting. If we were willing to deal with them at all (a big 'if') we'd want lots of cash up front as a rent deposit and maybe a financial guarantee for the rent going forward from a company or person with proven substantial assets whom we could collect from if necessary. Or maybe we'd tell them just to sling their hook. Politely of course.:)

So watch this/their space to see if they continue at Swanwick and Noss going forward.
 
Lucky Duck said:
IIRC there was something in the administrators report to the effect that rent wasn’t being actively chased.

Possibly the landlord sees the value of an on site brokerage beyond simply the rent?
Click to expand...
Possibly. But a good brokerage that pays the rent must be a more attractive tenant than one that doesn't.

Other problems with tenants that go bust are the extra work and hassle for the landlords, and also the way that the premises can be in imperfect condition and require money spending on them before they can be re-let. When tenants are in business and paying the rent it's best if they keep the premises in pristine condition but that can be hard to do with the business in occupation. However a good tenant will sort them out or pay for us to do so when they leave in a planned way. But when they go bust they can't. Add to that if the tenants run out of money often they'll have economised on repairs and maintenance so that adds to the problem.
 
Lucky Duck said:
IIRC there was something in the administrators report to the effect that rent wasn’t being actively chased.

Possibly the landlord sees the value of an on site brokerage beyond simply the rent?
Click to expand...
SVUK (as was before the name change) went into administration out of which the sale was a pre-pack.

The rent not being actively chased may simply have been a function of the administrator’s moritorium; that is to say there was no point in the landlord chasing bcs the administrator was protected from having to pay.
 
chriss999 said:
Legal, yes, and it happens all the time when the directors want to reincarnate the business and to leave the unsecured creditors behind.

Honest, definitely not.
Click to expand...
Well, 'honest' can mean different things. I meant only that as far as I know it was done openly and following the law.

I agree that lots of things done openly and following the law are - shall we say - unsatisfactory. Specially when people lose out in a big way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top