We had this email from Blanked Out due to legal action - in liquidation - this afternoon.
Rob,
You are right we are issuing a cease and desist
against you
If the post is not removed by close tonight we will not only
conclude a cease and desist but will seek damages against you personally.
Your post as usual is inaccurate on many counts, your
personal attacks and previous emails to me are absolutely disgusting and I have
retained them all on file. These will also be passed over to our solicitors.
The legal remedies that are open to a businesses in our position
are there for a reason, we are acting within the law. You might not like us or
Crowdcube, but you cannot continue to constantly write posts of an inaccurate
nature like this.
Confirm the posts removal
Blanked out due to legal action
........................................................................
........................................................................
We are acting on behalf on one of Blanks shareholders - at their request. Shareholders have lost a considerable amount of money. Those are irrefutable facts according to the filings at Companies House.
The SofA for this company show that it has estimated debts of over £2m. Assets are said to be worth around £8,500 from a book value of over £500k. These are all verifiable facts in the public domain.
There is an outstanding loan with Thincats estimated at £128k.
Trade creditors stand at an estimated £130k.
HMRC is owed an estimated £190k.
Total estimated deficiency for this company is £2,370,000.
We also received an email from the CEO of Blank very recently which stated that the shareholder we are acting for had only invested £20 - ie so bloddy what sort of thing. Well it turns out the investor had actually put over £4k into this company - the large proportion of it quite recently. They are taking the issue up with FOS. That is a straight forward lie and shows scant regard for the people who gave their money to this guy to help his business - on Crowdcube.
All of the above are 100% accurate verifiable facts in the public domain. As produced by CH or our records.
We leave shareholders to judge where the blame lies. We know what we know.
The Director of this now failed company has issued a threat to go to these on line lawyers - Cohen Davis https://www.internetlawcentre.co.uk/ . Has anyone ever come across them? In our experience much smoke means little fire and we are happy that everything we published on this company was accurate - events have proved that. We have however taken down and hold in reserve posts with their name on. It smacks to us of something not quite right when threats are made which can only be countered by law incurring considerable costs.
This company, which is in liquidation not administration, is still out there on Twitter and on its own website punting for business. Is that legal?
The SofA for this company show that it has estimated debts of over £2m. Assets are said to be worth around £8,500 from a book value of over £500k. These are all verifiable facts in the public domain.
There is an outstanding loan with Thincats estimated at £128k.
Trade creditors stand at an estimated £130k.
HMRC is owed an estimated £190k.
Total estimated deficiency for this company is £2,370,000.
We also received an email from the CEO of Blank very recently which stated that the shareholder we are acting for had only invested £20 - ie so bloddy what sort of thing. Well it turns out the investor had actually put over £4k into this company - the large proportion of it quite recently. They are taking the issue up with FOS. That is a straight forward lie and shows scant regard for the people who gave their money to this guy to help his business - on Crowdcube.
All of the above are 100% accurate verifiable facts in the public domain. As produced by CH or our records.
We leave shareholders to judge where the blame lies. We know what we know.
The Director of this now failed company has issued a threat to go to these on line lawyers - Cohen Davis https://www.internetlawcentre.co.uk/ . Has anyone ever come across them? In our experience much smoke means little fire and we are happy that everything we published on this company was accurate - events have proved that. We have however taken down and hold in reserve posts with their name on. It smacks to us of something not quite right when threats are made which can only be countered by law incurring considerable costs.
This company, which is in liquidation not administration, is still out there on Twitter and on its own website punting for business. Is that legal?
Dear Rob,
ReplyDeleteLaughable from them. My advice is to keep ruffling feathers, keep doing what you are doing. You are carrying out a valuable public service with your information and website.
Crowdcube are a joke, the whole platform is an invitation for idiots to set up a hopeless company with a slick message, that actually has no hope of funding from anyone but other idiots like I used to be!
I think you should just refer them to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram and see what they come back with.
ReplyDeleteI understand your caution. Unless you have access to a free legal advisor who specialises in this sort of thing, or have no assets, even if you win you lose, you never get your time back.
ReplyDeleteJust take some small comfort that they thought you were worth sending a threatening letter to and if the company is pretty much without assets, the lawers may have problems getting their bill paid.
Just at the moment we are focused on ECF.Buzz. This case is without any doubt crooked - we have much written evidence to prove it. But liquidators dont want to know - eats into their fees. And why would we take the risk - there is no money in it for us? Acting on behalf of a member as a favour.
ReplyDelete