"We'll put a million quid of our own dosh in to help find Madeleine - if Grange is wound up" - Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann

I'm guessing all this Mccspin is because the court case decision is imminent!

Angelique wrote:sharonl

"If I am correct, then Amarals' lawyer will be also be asking that question.  The money is safer in the fund, isn't it?"

I think you may be right about it being safer in The Fund.

It must be a precautionary measure - perhaps Enid O'Dowd can advise?

Could be a ploy to put their own funds out of the reach if the court case goes against them, but their house is worth a few bob, so they'll not hide all their assets.

PeterMac wrote:I am interested to discover that they have cash reserves so large that they can contemplate liquidating a small portion of them - say £1 million -
to assist the "fund" in whatever it is doing at the moment, and in whatever it has been doing for the last 7 years.

How much do the McCanns have at their instant disposal ?

@ PeterMac

Put very simply and starkly...

...the disappearance of their precious, first-born daughter...

...has enriched them

sonic72 wrote:
Could be a ploy to put their own funds out of the reach if the court case goes against them, but their house is worth a few bob, so they'll not hide all their assets.

They could have remortgaged the house and put the extra cash into the fund. That could decrease the value of their assets by as much as 90%.

I'm waiting for the announcement that 'No Stone Unturned' Ltd. has slightly changed it's modus operandi, and will no longer include the phrase "To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family". Instead it will concentrate solely on the search for Madeleine, bringing her abductor to justice and supporting that aim however possible. That will presumably avert the inevitable accusation that if they were happy to pay their own legal fees from the fund to start questionable proceedings, they should be prepared to pay everyone else's from the fund as well. I'm guessing it will give the company directors the right to challenge any payouts, while still leaving the way open to use the fund for legal fees (anyone putting the 'TheyDunnit' theory forward will be 'damaging the search' and thus sue-able by the Fund). And maybe Gerry and Kate will stand down as Directors in order to 'concentrate on the search'.

Or could they close that company down, start up another with a different name, and avoid paying costs that way? Works for dodgy builders, apparently!

I have no idea of company law - I am just musing on the news. It would be interesting if anyone out there has knowledge of how these things work. I have no doubt that the McCanns have been hatching all sorts of plans to avoid paying up, and they will blame their apparent near-bankruptcy on that evil Amaral, dodgy Portuguese judges, and the cost of their own, tireless, unceasing, unselfish and devoted search for their beloved daughter. (Now where's that 'Being Violently Sick' emoticon?!)

SuspiciousMinds wrote:

sonic72 wrote:
Could be a ploy to put their own funds out of the reach if the court case goes against them, but their house is worth a few bob, so they'll not hide all their assets.

They could have remortgaged the house and put the extra cash into the fund. That could decrease the value of their assets by as much as 90%.

I'm waiting for the announcement that 'No Stone Unturned' Ltd. has slightly changed it's modus operandi, and will no longer include the phrase "To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family". Instead it will concentrate solely on the search for Madeleine, bringing her abductor to justice and supporting that aim however possible. That will presumably avert the inevitable accusation that if they were happy to pay their own legal fees from the fund to start questionable proceedings, they should be prepared to pay everyone else's from the fund as well. I'm guessing it will give the company directors the right to challenge any payouts, while still leaving the way open to use the fund for legal fees (anyone putting the 'TheyDunnit' theory forward will be 'damaging the search' and thus sue-able by the Fund). And maybe Gerry and Kate will stand down as Directors in order to 'concentrate on the search'.

Or could they close that company down, start up another with a different name, and avoid paying costs that way? Works for dodgy builders, apparently!

I have no idea of company law - I am just musing on the news. It would be interesting if anyone out there has knowledge of how these things work. I have no doubt that the McCanns have been hatching all sorts of plans to avoid paying up, and they will blame their apparent near-bankruptcy on that evil Amaral, dodgy Portuguese judges, and the cost of their own, tireless, unceasing, unselfish and devoted search for their beloved daughter. (Now where's that 'Being Violently Sick' emoticon?!)

Have you done this before SuspiciousMinds? [wink emoticon]

Tony Bennett wrote:
Put very simply and starkly...
...the disappearance of their precious, first-born daughter...
...has enriched them

As it has enriched Mitchell, probably the extended family (Philomena for example,
and many others.

AS GERRY SAID, "IT WAS A GOOD MARKETING PLOY."
Indeed it was.

sar wrote:Have you done this before SuspiciousMinds? [wink emoticon]

Damn - my secret's out!

Doug D wrote:Suspicious Minds:
 
I'm waiting for the announcement that 'No Stone Unturned' Ltd. has slightly changed it's modus operandi, and will no longer include the phrase "To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family".
 
The objects have already been changed to exclude this clause, with the amendment filed at Companies House back on 17^th December 2011.
 
I imagine this was to try and reduce criticism when it appeared in the accounts each year, but that is purely my suggestion as I have no way of knowing the reason behind it.
 
However, as easily as it can be removed……………………..

There are many ways this family can be supported anyway. Kate's salary (after all  she is now full time working on the "search for Madeleine", use of space in the house, use of utilities, the extension they recently had made, expenses for both of the pathetic parents. They're not unique in this though, and their fund is not even a non profit, so they can do whatever they want. I have seen this in so many blatant ways done in the non-profit circuit in Washington DC. It's a huge industry and perfectly fit for white washing money.

Interestingly when you look up the company:
  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

They have recently (in March) filed a DIRECTOR'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / MRS KATE MARIE MCCANN / 01/03/2015 - wonder what thats about..

Also
Document: CH04 - Change of particulars for corporate secretary
CORPORATE SECRETARY'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / BWB SECRETARIAL LIMITED / 02/03/2015

Also


Document: AD01 - Change of registered office address
REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 02/03/2015 FROM
2/6 CANNON STREET
LONDON
EC4M 6YH
Filed on: 02 Mar 2015

a little flurry of activity - hmmmm

OK DougD -Fair enough

Doug D wrote:HelenMeg:
 
‘a little flurry of activity – hmmmm’
 
Nothing untoward.
 
BWB look to have moved offices and as Kate’s registered address was the office address for some reason (GM’s is the hospital) it is merely a change of address form.

Just popping in then out.

Quick question to anyone.

If Mr Amaral wins the Civil case and is awarded costs can the Judge demand a freeze on any moneys from either the parents
or ' The Fund ' itself as a precedent has been set ( in Portugal at least ) that monies need to be kept available to pay the winner
so to speak?

The Portuguse precedent seems to be the retention of Mr Amarals assets.

Does it work the other way round too?

Thanks in advance.

I assume it would be difficult to freeze assets in a different country. DR Amaral's assets are in the country where the lawsuit was filed.

I don't think they can do anything to the fund since the fund is no party to this suit.

If Rocky has won the action in Portugal and he decides to sue them and any newspapers who have written untruthful articles about him, is it possible he might be able to sue in UK?

He could -and should- have sued ages ago

If -and that's a big IF- someone had been willing to bankroll him

But unfortunately, he doesn't look so good in a [strike]swimming[/strike], jogging suit.  

And, although he is a doctor, he's not a MEDICAL doctor

You see?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Dr Martin Roberts regarding the injection of cash from the Kate's book's royalties

plebgate wrote:If Rocky has won the action in Portugal and he decides to sue them and any newspapers who have written untruthful articles about him, is it possible he might be able to sue in UK?

That would be excellent and fingers crossed he can and does.......How ironic !!!

If costs are not paid in full then (any) party could be declared bankrupt.   If that happened to Mr. & Mrs. then they possibly would not be able to be directors of any company?

I thought we were led to believe that there was only £750,000 in the Fund.   If that is correct then the courts would want to know how any large amounts of money previously not in the Fund had found their way there IMO.   Not that I am well up on the law at all, but aren't there laws saying that monies have to have been in an account for so many years before they cannot be taken following a court order?

However, proceeds from ‘madeleine’, probably the largest slice of income after public donations, were ring-fenced to the Fund from the outset, libel awards were said to have been donated to the fund, (the most recent award was donated to ‘Missing People’ and another charity iirc), so there is just the serialization rights (£500k?) which I don’t think we don’t know about. taken from Doug D post

As Dr Martin Roberts points out in his recent post - the book was sold with
[color:09c5=000000] 'flash' sticker (actually part of the cover graphic) which promised: 'All royalties donated to Madeleine's Fund'.

[color:09c5=000000]So how come the monies did not go straight into the fund (they appear to be still with Mc Canns now until transferred over as per recent claims). Or are royalties different from general proceeds from the book.. just wondering

HelenMeg wrote:However, proceeds from ‘madeleine’, probably the largest slice of income after public donations, were ring-fenced to the Fund from the outset, libel awards were said to have been donated to the fund, (the most recent award was donated to ‘Missing People’ and another charity iirc), so there is just the serialization rights (£500k?) which I don’t think we don’t know about. taken from Doug D post

As Dr Martin Roberts points out in his recent post - the book was sold with
[color:12f6=000000] 'flash' sticker (actually part of the cover graphic) which promised: 'All royalties donated to Madeleine's Fund'.

[color:12f6=000000]So how come the monies did not go straight into the fund (they appear to be still with Mc Canns now until transferred over as per recent claims). Or are royalties different from general proceeds from the book.. just wondering

They may well be playing with words and technicalities here as I believe Blair did when making a donation of book proceeds to the British Legion. The bulk of any payment may have been in an advance payable to them and royalties would subsequently be offset against that. Only after the advance had been repaid would they receive any royalties as such so possibly Advance - £500k; Total Royalties - £650k; Royalties offset - £500k; Royalties donated - £150k. If so, they could argue that technically they weren't lying although they would have been misleading and seriously economical with the truth.

Lazz's latest...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


FWIW, here is my opinion. Whatever anyone may think, the Fund is watertight and within every single boundary of legality. It doesn't make it palatable but it's completely legal. Why wouldn't it be? There are enough high level professionals who have been paid from it, who swooped in immediately to ensure that very thing.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the Fund is operating legally until anyone can prove otherwise.

As for my opinion on the morality and ethics of the Fund from declarations by the parents, declarations by everyone connected to it, well my disgust is boundless and my heart is running on empty.

Exclusive by Mike 'monitor' Wrong.

The parents or Madeleine McCann plan to plough their own money into the search for their missing daughter if police halt their investigation.
----------------------------------------------------

HA! HA! APRIL FOOLS'!

aquila wrote:

Whether anyone likes it or not, the Fund is operating legally until anyone can prove otherwise.
-----------------------------------

Well, you say that, BUT, what if the 'fund' was 'set up' AFTER the McCanns, and possibly 'others' knew, KNEW, (including Esther McVey, thankfully now NOT an MP) exactly what had 'happened' to Madeleine, on 3rd May 2007, almost 2 weeks BEFORE the 'fund' was launched? (16th May 2007)

Be it 'simulated/faked abduction', 'planned disappearance', 'death' or a 'scam'

"Evidence" possibly shows that Madeleine McCann possibly died in or near apartment 5A at the Ocean Club Resort in Praia da Luz in Portugal. (OG's DCI Redwood 'she may not have left apartment 'alive' and Met Commissioner BHH ('murder').Madeleine possibly met her 'demise' sometime between May 1 and May 3. The Fund they set up to look for Madeleine IS 'FRAUDULENT' if, IF, any person involved in the case 'knew' Madeleine 'was dead' (or massive 'scam') at the time it was set up. Including ex MP, Esther McVey, who attended the 'fund' launch and was an appointed director on the board of the 'fund', who authorised 2 mortgage 'repayments' totalling £4,000, from the 'fund', just 2 months, after the 'fund' was 'set up', for the McCanns.

istbc, of course, as always!

jeanmonroe wrote:aquila wrote:

Whether anyone likes it or not, the Fund is operating legally until anyone can prove otherwise.

I think you mean, the fund 'appears' to operating legally but you cannot say it 'is' operating legally because you do not have access to the full accounts due to the Mccann's lack of transparency.

If I am correct, moving funds so close to a court decision would not help them avoid paying costs. It would be viewed as a deliberate attempt to not pay by reason of lack of funds. Someone with an imminent bankruptcy hearing who had sold his Rolex to a family member would be in even more financial hot water and steps to recover the funds would be taken. This is supposing all the Mcmoney is legitimately lodged with a financial institution? They either think we the public have short memories or are still working on the assumption that we are stupid and take their every word as the Mctruth!

snook wrote:If I am correct, moving funds so close to a court decision would not help them avoid paying costs. It would be viewed as a deliberate attempt to not pay by reason of lack of funds. Someone with an imminent bankruptcy hearing who had sold his Rolex to a family member would be in even more financial hot water and steps to recover the funds would be taken. This is supposing all the Mcmoney is legitimately lodged with a financial institution? They either think we the public have short memories or are still working on the assumption that we are stupid and take their every word as the Mctruth!