Cattles PLC - Interim Management Statement

hi all if its 6yrs for stat barred then i have another 5 but then if there is a defect in the agreement is this why they wont forward a true copy to me or have they lost it but surely if it was cosha then they would release it to get their monies wouldnt they? regards

hi there where would i stand as i requested my cca late 2009 and welcome replied they dont have it and sent me a reconstituted one which was about 10,000 more than what i remember the original agreement and to this day i still havent had one.they have admitted miselling me ppi but i have told them i wont sign the new agreement untill i have a copy of the original one as there is the 10,000 difference problem and it has just gone quiet. it is a secured loan regards edwi

S & U keen to acquire Cattles' Shopacheck home credit business

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/cattles-may-avoid-administration-banks-key-sources-reuters_molt-4ab0f0ef16bc.html

http://www.express.co.uk/money/view/200540/Cattles-prepares-for-insolvency

Cattles gets knock back on survival deal

Some Cattles Bondholder Creditors Exit Restructuring Talks

Cattles Cease Restructuring Talks With Bondholders; To Continue ...

Hi beyond many thanks for that and sorry i havent replied untill now but i have been laid up with kidney stones,hope all is ok your end. Is it me or has it gone really quiet on the forum now with not many giving advice. Regards ed:)

Bumpppppp

Cattles plc (CTT) - Financial and Strategic Analysis Review

HI ALL ANOTHER READ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/cattles-had-hoped-to-offer-utopia-to-public-2035549.html

Hi There Where Do I Stand With A Secured Loan If They Cant Find My Cca If They Go Under Ive Been Waiting Since September They Have Said It Cant Be Found And Only Have A Reconstituted One Regards

AND ANOTHER Cattles had hoped to offer Utopia to public - Business News, Business - The Independent

HI ALL ANOTHER LITTLE READ Cattles PLC - Order of the Supreme Court Cattles PLC 28 July 2010 28 July 2010 Cattles plc - Order of the Supreme Court On 13 May 2010, the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the decision of the High Court on the application of Cattles plc (the "Company") to seek a determination in relation to whether the terms contained within certain cross-guarantee documentation operate to subordinate the Company's claims against its subsidiaries, including Welcome Financial Services Limited, to the claims of certain bank creditors, as explained in the announcement of the Company on 13 May 2010. Following the order of the Court of Appeal, Party A applied to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision. The Company has today been notified that, on 26 July 2010, the Supreme Court ordered that permission to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision be refused because the application to appeal "does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court at this time, bearing in mind that the case has already been the subject of judicial decision and reviewed on appeal". Consequently, the application of the Company has been finally determined to the effect that the Company's claims against its subsidiaries are subordinated to the claims of certain bank creditors. ENDS For further information: Margaret Young, Chairman, Cattles plc 020 7269 7252 Geoffrey Pelham-Lane/Paul Marriott, Financial Dynamics

Thats Fantastic News:grin:

DONT KNOW IF THIS MEANS MUCH BUT JUST SPOTTED IT United Kingdom July 7 2010 On 13 May 2010, the Court of Appeal in Cattles Plc v Welcome Financial Services Ltd & Ors [2010] CA (Civ Div), upheld the previous ruling in this case. Although the case is also of interest in relation to the application of the English common law equitable rule derived from Cherry v Boultbee (1839) 4 My & Cr 442 case (regarding the right of quasi retainer), this article will focus on the court's contractual interpretation of the non competition clause itself. The case concerned a claim brought by Cattles Plc ("Cattles") in order to determine various issues relating to debts it owed to different classes of creditors as part of consideration during a standstill period of its options to avoid insolvent liquidation. Cattles' principal assets were the amounts receivable by it from its trading subsidiaries, of which the largest amount was payable by Welcome Financial Services Ltd ("Welcome"). Cattles' financing liabilities included a number of credit facilities between Cattles as borrower and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc ("the Bank") as lender. The Bank had the benefit of a group-cross guarantee by which Cattles, Welcome and other subsidiaries had each guaranteed the payment of all obligations owed by the others to the Bank. Cattles had also issued bonds which were not guaranteed. The Bank's argument was that the terms of its facilities and cross-guarantee meant that Cattles was prevented from recovering its intercompany debts from Welcome and other group companies until each had satisfied their obligations under the guarantee in full. If this were the case this would mean that the assets available to the bondholders would be substantially depleted. The case therefore centred on the terms of the relevant non competition clause (in particular Clause 6.2) of the guarantee which provided that: "6. Until all claims of the Bank in respect of all of the Obligations of each Debtor have been discharged in full: 6.1 no Guarantor shall be entitled to participate in any security held by the Bank or money received by the Bank in respect of any Debtor's Obligations; 6.2 no Guarantor shall in competition with or in priority to the Bank make any claim against any Debtor or any co-guarantor or their respective estates nor make any claim in the insolvency of any Debtor or any coguarantor nor take or enforce any security from or against any Debtor or any co-guarantor; and 6.3 any payment received by a Guarantor in breach of clause 6.2 and any security taken by a Guarantor from any Debtor or any co-guarantor shall be held in trust for the Bank as security for the liability of the Guarantors to the Bank under this deed.” As this was a cross guarantee, the terms "Guarantor" and "Debtor" each included all group companies involved in the financing. Cattles had submitted that this drafting terminology led to the conclusion that Clause 6.2 restricted only the making of any claim which a guarantor had arising out of its capacity as guarantor (such as a claim for counter-indemnity by the principal debtor or contribution from a coguarantor). The Bank had argued that this clause operated as a contractual prohibition on the claiming of any intercompany debt due between the companies party to it until all the guaranteed obligations to the Bank had been paid. In upholding the original decision (supporting the Bank's position) the reasoning of the Court included the following which is worthy of note: the purpose of such a clause is to preserve the Bank's claims and to prevent same from being diluted in event of the insolvency of one or more of those liable to it and it would not be "commercially rational" or "objective" to limit the ambit of the restrictions in Clause to claims by the relevant party as guarantor; use of the defined terms "Guarantor" and "Debtor" did not mean that only the relevant person's claims in such capacity were restricted by this Clause and did not serve to limit the operation of the words "any claim" and "in competition with or in priority to the Bank" in Clause 6.2; the use of the words "any claim" in this context should be interpreted to mean any claim which the relevant party had and not just those in its capacity as a guarantor; that the words "in competition with" did not mean competition only between creditors and guarantors in respect of the same debt but also encapsulated competition between competing creditors for different debts owed by a common debtor; and that the phrase "under this deed" had been used elsewhere in the guarantee but not in the relevant clause and as such a clear intention of the parties could be inferred that claims should not be limited in such a way. This case shows that the Court is willing to look at the purpose of the relevant clause in reaching a decision but that the specific drafting used will also play a big part in the determination of a particular issue such as this. On that basis, borrowers, guarantors and lenders will require to be well advised as to the exact wording used in such clauses, and in guarantees generally, in order to achieve the desired outcome. While the above case relates to English law guarantees, it is likely that such a decision of the Court of Appeal, while not binding, would be considered persuasive in Scotland and that Scottish courts would consider this case in deciding similar issues.

Bump

Hi Ozzy Glad To See You Are Back About And I Hope All Is Well Your End Regards Ed

Hi Post Could You Take A Look At Welscums Response For Me Regards Ed

HI POST WELL I HAVE HAD A RESPONSE FROM WELSCUM TODAY AND THEY ARE STILL WRONG THEY ARE TRYING TO WRIGGLE OUT OF THE INTEREST ON THE PPI AND LIFE COVER AND DO THEY HAVE TO OFFER 100 COMPENSATION ASWELL.I HAVE A GOOD MIND TO TELL THEM TO GET STUFFED NOW UNTILL THEY GIVE ME A TRUE COPY OF MY CCA AND UNDERWRITING SHEET ANYWAY HERE IS THE LINK HAVE A NOSE IF YOU COULD AND TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK. REGARDS ED. WELSCUM CAN DREAM ON pictures by edwi69 - Photobucket

HI ALL ANOTHER LITTLE READ Court of Appeal considers efficacy of subordination provisions in ... [/url]

Hi All Does Anyone Have The Link For The Cca Template Letter And The Sar Template Letter. Regards Ed

Hi ALL I Wrote To CAPITOL ONE After I Had Defaulted And Asked Them To Accept A MONTHLY OFFER OF PAYMENT And Initialed And Printed My Name But They Said They Cannot Action My Request Without My signature Is This A LOAD OF NONSENSE I SENT THE LETTER RECORDED CAN ANYONE ASSIST Regards