Ringy Rose Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Luker said: You can be in receivership and still have the financial means to trade. No you really can’t. Especially not if it is at the order of the Attorney General, which is what the BBC reported. 2 minutes ago, Luker said: The license was cancelled under S 13.of OGRA and 13.3 (C) makes it clear that if anyone is convicted in any court in the world of an offense with a sentence of 2 years or more. That’s grounds As @Gladys points out, that only applies to the owners or the Designated Official. The GSC haven’t given any other detail. We’re all just guessing. This means you can’t use the licences going as proof the local staff knew what was going on. They might have been in on it or they might have also been hoodwinked into thinking they were running a legitimate company. Maybe it was a legitimate company. We simply don’t know and probably won’t know for years. Edited August 27 by Ringy Rose 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said: No you really can’t. As @Gladys points out, that only applies to the owners or the Designated Official. No you can https://myliquidation.co.uk/what-is-receivership-how-does-it-differ-from-liquidation/ “A Receiver can be appointed for reasons, such as shareholder disputes, or poor cash flow management leading to defaults on loans. Unlike in a liquidation process, the business does not have to halt operations when in receivership but the Receiver has the power to manage projects to regain funds, liquidate assets, or, if need be, sell the business off entirely” Edited August 27 by Luker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 5 minutes ago, Gladys said: Not anyone. Owners or designated official. Who was specifically named in the BBC report again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) ''Just a local.... Sympathy with your Wife for losing her job. Hope she gets another soon. With the notice of these actions coming up, they would have been wise to 'hide' their assets. The receivers are not likely to find much to realise? Edited August 27 by Kopek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 1 minute ago, Luker said: No you can https://myliquidation.co.uk/what-is-receivership-how-does-it-differ-from-liquidation/ “Unlike in a liquidation process, the business does not have to halt operations when in receivership but the Receiver has the power to manage projects to regain funds, liquidate assets, or, if need be, sell the business off entirely” No, but 'you' are no longer running the show, it is for the receivers to manage the business. No idea why you laughed at my post above, but the Act is quite clear that s.13(3)(c) is in relation to the licence holder or the designated official. So, conviction of, shall we call them, scam foot soldiers, would not be grounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 2 minutes ago, Luker said: Owners or designated official. Who was specifically named in the BBC report again? No licence holders or designated officials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 Just now, Gladys said: No, but 'you' are no longer running the show, it is for the receivers to manage the business. No idea why you laughed at my post above, but the Act is quite clear that s.13(3)(c) is in relation to the licence holder or the designated official. So, conviction of, shall we call them, scam foot soldiers, would not be grounds. Who was specifically named in the BBC article? Not a foot soldier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Gladys said: No, but 'you' are no longer running the show, it is for the receivers to manage the business. No idea why you laughed at my post above, but the Act is quite clear that s.13(3)(c) is in relation to the licence holder or the designated official. So, conviction of, shall we call them, scam foot soldiers, would not be grounds. But the company can happily continue trading and meet its liabilities. So the point made above is just wrong. Receivership shouldn’t automatically trigger anything under 13 OGRA. But 13,3 (C) wouid. You can be in receivership and still have the financial means to meet liabilities. Edited August 27 by Luker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Luker said: Who was specifically named in the BBC article? Not a foot soldier. Was that individual named as the owner also named as being convicted in China? 10 minutes ago, Luker said: A Receiver can be appointed for reasons, such as shareholder disputes, or poor cash flow management leading to defaults on loans Thank you. I do work in financial services so I do know the difference. Receivership is insolvency. It shows you do not have adequate financial means. Maybe you will do once the receiver has sorted things out. It’s not the same test as trains whilst insolvent. Edited August 27 by Ringy Rose 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 3 minutes ago, Luker said: Who was specifically named in the BBC article? Not a foot soldier. Was anyone named convicted and either a licence holder or designated official? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 Just now, Ringy Rose said: Thank you. I do work in financial services so I do know the difference. P But you clearly don’t as I had to provide a link. Receivership is not liquidation or insolvency. A shareholder dispute can trigger receivership. The company can still trade and could still be solvent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Luker said: https://lotteryinsider.com/2024/07/public-statement-isle-of-man-gsc-cancellation-of-gambling-licences-for-king-gaming-limited-and-dalmine-limited/ “The Commission considers that it is in the public interest to issue this statement to advise stakeholders that further to section 13 of OGRA, the Commission cancelled King Gaming Limited’s licence on 24th July 2024. This decision has immediate effect” Section 13 of OGRA is here (Page 13): https://www.gov.im/media/1349397/online-gambling-regulation-act-2001.pdf Just to get back to what was originally said without the pedantic distractions. Consider S13.3 (C) OGRA. Edited August 27 by Luker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 Just now, Luker said: But you clearly don’t as I had to provide a link A link you clearly don’t understand. Bye now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 Just now, Luker said: Just to get back to what was originally said without the pedantic distractions. Not pedantic distractions, just accuracy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 Just now, Ringy Rose said: A link you clearly don’t understand. Bye now. No you clearly don’t understand the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.