News Funds Law firms Halliwells’ administrators seek funds to cover £200m of debts By Margaret Taylor 15 February 2011 12:27 17 December 2015 15:25 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Logan 15 February 2011 at 13:00 Really? That much? the sums involved are just ludicrous. I don’t know how the partners that brought down that firm can sleep at night. Reply Link Retirement ahoy!! 15 February 2011 at 13:22 £5.5m owed to the taxman. Good work as ever HMRC!!!! Reply Link Al Murray 15 February 2011 at 13:48 Surely the leases have all been forfeited and the landlords can now try to secure new and better covenants? Why would rent for unexpired terms be taken into account? If that is the case then clearly the landlords will be far better off than they otherwise would have been. Reply Link Anonymous 15 February 2011 at 13:50 Really? The landlords are claiming that they won’t be able to rent the propoerties to anyone else for the duration of the Halliwells lease(s). Nice bit of headlining. Reply Link Solvent Tick 15 February 2011 at 13:53 Sleep at night? They probably can’t. Taking money out of the business when debts were in the nine figures? Trading while insolvent? Personal liability? Reply Link Anonymous 15 February 2011 at 14:49 I don’t understand why the administrator is not disclaiming the lease. Would that not be the obvious way to reduce liabilities? Reply Link Anonymous 15 February 2011 at 15:02 I hope the creditors pursue the former partners of this awful firm to end of the earth. It’is absolutely disgraceful that HMRC are owed such significant sums of money in these dire economic times. This money could be spent on a new hospital, cancer treatment and schools. Utterly despicable, that we should all suffer as a result of this diabolical state of affairs. Reply Link rachelswipe 15 February 2011 at 15:59 anonymous – because administrators can’t disclaim a lease. only a liquidator can do that. when it goes into liquidation, then the liquidator will most likely disclaim the leases. at that point, the landlords can put in claims for rent to the end of the term, but there is a statutory discount for receiving it early. or not at all, by the look of it. Reply Link Anonymous 15 February 2011 at 16:09 Blimey, this is nearly three times the firm’s last reported annual turnover. This must have been the most badly managed law firm in history! Time for partners to accept professional business managers to do the managing (not just paying lip-service to them), while they do the fee-earning. Reply Link Anonymous 15 February 2011 at 16:10 Anonymous at 2:49 pm – administrators don’t have the power is disclaim leases – only liquidators have that power. The landlords will not be in any rush to forfeit the leases unless and until they find a new tenant; if they took the leases back now the landlords would have to pick up the tab for the empty rates. I suspect that when new tenants are found the landlord will then accept a surrender of the lease from the administrator (which he does have power to do). Reply Link Anonymous 15 February 2011 at 16:23 It has been known to happen that admins keep significant creditors onside by making noises about their admitted claim if said creditors happened to sit on a committee that approves said admins drawings for remuneration. But obviously not here. Landlords have also been known to hide behind rates and other voids by leaving the lease in the bust vehicle until re-let. But obviously not here either. It would be inappropriate to suggest that here. So I am not. Reply Link Anonymous 15 February 2011 at 17:34 How much did Robert Maxwell go down owing? Reply Link Ashley Balls 15 February 2011 at 20:49 Whether or not the unexpired portion of the lease can or cannot be counted it is very clear that the partners of what turned out to be a moribund organisation in management terms should have to carry the equivalent of a ‘health warning’. Surely no first rate firm would have taken a Halliwells partner to thier bosom without first checking their credentials. Or would they? Reply Link Solicitors Toothless Authority 15 February 2011 at 20:57 What’s the SRA up to? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Reply Link The reverse premium crew 15 February 2011 at 21:44 Ian Austin, take a bow son, take a bow Reply Link CVA E-Bay 15 February 2011 at 21:51 I bid £12.50 for the next Iggy Pop concert at Wembley. Reply Link Drum 16 February 2011 at 08:22 It will be interesting to know if any PGs have been given by any “partners” at Halliwells and if it is likely anyone will be subsequently be made bankrupt as a consequence. When Fox Hayes went down the tubes Steven Coupland was made bankrupt shortly after so it can not be ruled out. Any inside information ! Reply Link Anonymous 16 February 2011 at 09:56 The anonymous post at 4:23 pm on 15 February had me rolling on the floor with laughter! Like me, you’re obviously a lawyer with experience of such things that never happen. Unlike me, you’re a talented comedy writer. Have you thought about giving up the day job? Reply Link Anonymous 16 February 2011 at 10:32 So which firm is next to go down the tubes? Reply Link Anonymous 16 February 2011 at 10:38 He’s still Chair of Audit at Salford…. Reply Link Anonymous 16 February 2011 at 11:07 He’s also acting for the University of Salford in the libel claim against a former lecturer http://vagrantsinthecasualwardofaworkhouse.blogspot.com/2010/12/registrar-witness-statement-and-court.html Reply Link Comedy Hour 16 February 2011 at 12:13 I am also taken by some of the amusing statements. People do not seem to understand what it going on here. 1. The sale of the assets resulted in a deal whereby the partners who moved to Hill Dicks, Barlows and Gateley Wearing would see their practice loans repaid. The payment would come from realisations from the assets. Is that fair when you take into account the reverse premium received by some of those partners and the huge losses incurred by creditors? 2. The partners who were there when the ship went down have the ability to claim terminal loss relief. This includes the ones who took the £20M reverse premium. Is that fair when considering the position of the creditors? 3. Those who took the reverse premium may see a cash neutral position and get the benefit of terminal loss relief so they lose nothing. Is that fair. Nobody in the press has really got to grips with the tax position and the application fo terminal loss relief. Tax rebates loom large which means even less money for hospitals etc. Whose laughing now? Reply Link Anonymous 16 February 2011 at 18:27 @9.56 am. On twelve separate occasions today. Alas reverse premium / lottery win is but a pipe dream and I shall have to keep at the drudgery for a living. The Lawyer omits to mention that the Landlords (assuming that they are admitted for this top line number) may get as much as (by very, very rough sums assuming an even split in the rentals and a full prescribed part, which is no certainty by the sound of it) a quarter’s rent each out of the process. Reply Link Hugey 16 February 2011 at 19:02 Well bad innit. Wotevs. Reply Link Daylight Robbery 16 February 2011 at 21:03 That’s what it is. Reply Link Anonymous 17 February 2011 at 14:55 Where’s Alec Craig? Do you think he should be reported to the police as a missing person? Reply Link Anonymous 17 February 2011 at 16:21 Alec Craig is probably still wafting around the streets of Alderley Edge in a powder blue Bentley convertible acquired at about the time the Halliwells’ equity partners received their bunce from Spinningfields. Reply Link AA 19 February 2011 at 13:03 What does the chair of the Salford Uni audit committee do? Is part of the job to advocate restraint? Wouldn’t mind seeing the job description. Reply Link Impy 20 February 2011 at 19:02 What were they thinking? A total lack of sensible management laced with a large portion of greed. Reply Link Anonymous 21 February 2011 at 12:43 Salford Audit Committee: “The Audit Committee is responsible to Council for adequate and effective risk management, control and governance (including ensuring the probity of the financial statements and the effective management and quality assurance of data submitted to funding bodies) and for the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the institution’s activities.” Reply Link Anonymous 21 February 2011 at 15:37 Anonymous 15 Feb at 5.34 In answer to your questions, according to Wiki…. “The Maxwell companies filed for bankruptcy protection in 1992. His son, Kevin Maxwell was declared bankrupt with debts of £400 million. In 1995 Maxwell’s sons Kevin and Ian and two other former directors went on trial for conspiracy to defraud, but were unanimously acquitted by a twelve-man jury in 1996” Reply Link The Knowledge 21 February 2011 at 19:39 Thank you anon 21 Feb 12:43 Am I the only one scratching my head? Reply Link Anon 23 February 2011 at 12:13 The Knowledge – it was a response to AA of a couple of posts earlier. Reply Link The Knowledge 23 February 2011 at 19:12 yes I followed it, I’m scratching my head over the job description when viewed by reference to the track record Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.