Halliwells mediation put on hold after eight months of deliberations
Mediation between former Halliwells partners and the failed firm’s liquidators has been adjourned after proceedings kicked off in April this year.
Attempts to reach an agreement between 32 ex-partners and liquidators Dermot Power and Shay Bannon at BDO have been going on since spring at the London offices of Addleshaw Goddard (23 April 2012).
A source close to the talks said the sessions had been put on hold until January next year, with no restart date fixed.
The mediation is being overseen by Quadrant Chambers’ Michel Kallipetis QC, a former head of Littleton Chambers.
David Douglas, chief executive of the Independent Mediators group of which Kallipetis is a member, confirmed that the proceedings had been adjourned, but declined to comment further.
It is unclear whether the location of the talks has changed.
Among the key issues at stake are the return of a £20.4m windfall received by the firm’s equity partners following a reverse premium deal with the firm’s Manchester office landlord Allied London (17 June 2011).
The mediation comes alongside a High Court battle between a group of former fixed-share partners and the liquidators, who are trying to recover drawings.
The firm collapsed in July 2010, appointing Power and Bannon as administrators (1 August 2010).
For more on post-Halliwells disputes, click here
Readers' comments (9)
Anonymous | 30-Nov-2012 5:15 pm
Hope they all get taken for every penny they have. Two years plus after the whole mess I am still psychologically scarred from the whole ordeal they don't realise how many lives they have ruined through their greed. May seem ott but it was a good firm to work for and the great work life has never been replaced at blg/ clydes whether they were equity or not they should all pay
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harsh | 30-Nov-2012 6:51 pm
Those who took the money should pay - there are lots of decent people who did no more than work hard and did nothing to assist ramping up the debt. Those who took the money need to pay every penny back.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Your sins have found you out | 1-Dec-2012 9:10 am
Whose bright idea was it to divert £21m into a hastily set up new company and then distribute the money to 32 members? Wouldn't you have thought one of those 32 members might have suggested that this could be problematic? They are a collective laughing stock.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1-Dec-2012 2:16 pm
I don't agree with 6.51pm - it's rather like saying WWII prison guards did not know what was being undertaken behind closed doors. In for a penny, in for a pound. They will have to live with the destruction they have caused I am afrraid.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Judgment day | 2-Dec-2012 10:28 am
If the Liquidator has such a great case then why not get on with it? 8 months of without prejudice discussions after proceedings have been issued seems to be a waste of time and money. This smacks of the Liquidator being in difficulties.
As the LLP would have had to pay out any profit from the reverse premium to its members anyway, where is the loss? The Liquidator would have advanced this far more quickly if he had a good case. His inability to do so must be heartening to the Defendants and it looks like they are totally in control of this situation.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Former member | 5-Dec-2012 12:52 pm
We were told very little and we have the evidence to prove it
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Payroll Poker? | 7-Dec-2012 12:36 pm
Re Judgment Day...
Shall we have a sweepstake as to which Spinningfields defendant you are........? Someone who thinks that LLPs have to take a gamble and return all unused cash at the end of the year, rather than keep it in the business.
But, whoever you are, you raise a valid point. The liquidator gets up in open court vs Mike Burns and says that he can allege fraud against all of you. Then he doesn't allege fraud and goes around in circles in without prejudice meetings. There must be a reason for that. I wonder what it could be.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jack | 15-Dec-2012 3:24 pm
Maybe it's because he hasn't got jack?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Fools gold | 19-Dec-2012 9:41 am
Unused cash? Could it not have been used to fund the 18m fit out? Nope - let's trouser the cash and borrow the fit out money so that we have an above market rent and eye watering debts to service - the genius of it all.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment