BDO demands return of cash from ex-Halliwells partners

  • Print
  • Comments (66)

Readers' comments (66)

  • Surely the mediation is with their ex-wives who now have the cash......!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Are they shameless?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This transaction was unlawful for so many reasons. First, it was a breach of the LLP deed. The deed imposed an obligation on all members to act towards every other member in accordance with utmost good faith. Trousering £20 million without telling the FSM's was a clear breach (just ask yourself if this would have been a fact which a reasonably prudent FSM would have wanted to know). If taking the money out really was in good faith in the best interests of the business, why did every single one of those involved keep it a secret for so long?

    Second, it was a breach of the general duty to act in good faith in the best interests of the LLP. Is the LLP in a better or worse position after you take £20 million out without telling the other partners? Is this really going to promote the long term interests of the business?

    Let's hope that the Insolvency Service considers disqualification proceedings against those involved, or the SRA begins disciplinary proceedings. They need to ask themselves whether Is a single one of the individuals who took the money a fit and proper person to be a solicitor.

    Anyway, they're only being asked to pay back what they took out. Unlike all the people who were paid a fraction of what they "earned" who lost their jobs when the business went bust, and unlike the creditors who didn't get paid for what they supplied.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 32 tasteless houses in Cheshire for sale. Going cheap. Free Bentley with each one.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I bet they papped their pantaloons when they got the letter

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • And they advise business people?
    Total lack of credibility
    Did nobody think about their duties to the llp?
    I suppose naked greed won the day
    Austin got a 50k bonus for doing such a good deal.
    That just about sums these spivs up

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Whilst this article picks out 15 partners who were still with Halliwells at the end, most of whom appear to have gone to Gateleys, by my reading there were another 17 partners who received the kick back and then immediately jumped ship?

    Atleast the 15 were still bringing work in to the business that gave them the ludicrous pay out. Those 17 raped Halliwells for what they could get and then legged it. Name and shame them please The Lawyer, I for one would like to know who they were and what firms they are at now!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • totally shameless

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • there is no way this can end good, lets hope it ends fast.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Limitation Act defences?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • financial penalties aren't enough for these wide boys

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • now call me a cynic (hears chorus) but couldn't this just be a ploy by the administrators to ramp up their fees?

    Now corp law isn't my thing but I can imagine this being a bit harder to deal with than a rear end shunt.

    Asking for £20m is easier than receiving it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • re Anon at 12h04
    You are a cynic.
    BDO have a very reputation, stop smearing them with filth. Focus your cynicism on the Ex Halliwells Partners - they deserve it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Oh to be in Gateley's board room......

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Wasn't there an earlier report in The Lawyer that four ex partners in Halliwells guaranteed the rent on their offices, and were being sued for it. As I recall, an application for summary judgement was starting on 20th June.............................

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The problem the ex-Halliwells partners have in defending the transaction is the failure to ensure that the partners receiving the funds were locked in to the business. I don't see how they can successfully defend this transaction as a result of this.
    There have been rumours about the then FD receiving a payment from the reverse premium. It would be interesting to learn whether this was the case and if so whether the administrator will be pursuing him.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • “The letter invites mediation in relation to a transaction entered into more than six years ago ..."
    "As an incentive for the firm to take the lease it was given part of the building’s freehold, which it then sold to Allied London in 2007."
    How is 2007 more than six years ago? Is Mr Waldie speaking from the future?
    I think we should be told.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ref rural bliss above; they bought the building off plan and agreed the deal a couple of years prior to completion, the payment being made once the lease completed following completion of the building.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • All in all a very harsh reaction I think. The freehold was an asset to the partnership as an incentive as part of the move. An asset that they were entitled to sell (again, as part of the LLP). Mediate it to the hills boys – you were given a very lucrative asset, and one which was exercised at the top of the market, Fair game! As for giving it back...... thats business BDO, would you?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • public flogging in spinningfields - any votes?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (66)