Re: Fund Accounts - Help explain this.

by Gillyspot 01.01.12 13:35

PeterMac wrote:
pauline wrote:
sharonl wrote:It looks official then, the McCanns start the new year with a fine from Companies House

The fine for being up to one month late is only £150. That's equivalent to about 15 minutes of Carter Ruck's valuable time...
Or two weeks of an Old Age Pensioner's contribution to the Fund.

"After the abduction Gerry and Kate McCann set in motion their own search with professional
assistance. A Fund was set up to finance the search and many people, often those who could
barely afford it, have given generously to that fund."

Really gets me cross that neither Kate nor Gerry have stinted on anything for themselves yet even IFLG agreed that people went without to donate to their fund.

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

by Guest 08.01.12 12:05

Any sign yet of the accounts yet??

Just wondering, perhaps SY are looking at the accounts?

2. How much are late filing penalties?

The level of the penalty depends on how late the accounts reach Companies House and is shown in the following table.

Length of delay (measured from the date the accounts are due)
Penalty : Private company
Not more than 1 month £150
More than 1 month but not more than 3 months £375
More than 3 months but not more than 6 months £750
More than 6 months £1,500

For example a private company’s set of acceptable accounts for the accounting period ending 30 September 2009 would need to be delivered by 30 June 2010 to avoid a late filing penalty. If they were not delivered to Companies House until 15 July 2010 the company will incur a late filing penalty of £150.

The penalties will be doubled if a company files its accounts late in 2 successive financial years beginning on or after 6 April 2008. This means that if a private company has an accounting reference date of 30 September and the accounts for the period ending 30 September 2009 were delivered late, and you delivered accounts for the subsequent period ending 30 September 2010 late, then you would incur a £300 late filing penalty.

3. Are late filing penalties the same as fines imposed on company directors for non-filing of annual returns and accounts?

No. They are entirely different. Failure to file accounts or annual returns is a criminal offence which can result in directors being fined personally in the criminal courts. The registrar may also take steps to strike the company off the public record. Your company could receive a late filing penalty and as a director, you could incur a fine for the same set of accounts if you do not file them on time. Failure to pay a late filing penalty can result in enforcement proceedings.

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

by Guest 08.01.12 12:29

If a company is intending to go into voluntary liquidation, they never file the last set of accounts. If they are closing the company down, we may never see what happened last year.

by Pershing36 08.01.12 12:45

Could they be closing the fund so they can pocket the full amount of the book sales? That way they can avoid any awkward questions about where the money is being spent.

If the fund did shut I wonder what effect it would have on their fan base?

by aiyoyo 08.01.12 13:06

How can they shut down the account? Aren't they still looking for Maddie?

Don't hold your breath on the accounts. There will be no transparency or detailed breakdown.

Most things will be lumped together under a few headings and no one the wiser of the compositions that made it up.

Anyway the day they become transparent is the day they are in trouble with the law and required to come clean.

Hopefully with the Review, it wont be long now.

by Guest 08.01.12 13:17

If SY are investigating the fund, all the books will be at SY offices, which means no one can finish the accounts to file anything. sarcastic

by Pershing36 08.01.12 13:18

Well they have openly said the fund is running low on money. They can't fund a search without money. They could argue that SY is conducting a case review so they have no need to have a private investigation.

by Liz Eagles 08.01.12 14:00

Pershing36 wrote:Well they have openly said the fund is running low on money. They can't fund a search without money. They could argue that SY is conducting a case review so they have no need to have a private investigation.

Sad isn't it. All that money and all that whining. IF this SY review is a lame duck as people question it may turn out to be, then where is the moaning and whining going to take them? we've had the libel suits, we've had the media hype, we've had the diary, we've had the bewk...what's next!!!!!!!!!!....the film rights? the musical? the Broadway show?

by Pershing36 08.01.12 14:24

Will they need anything else. Surely the book will make them millionaires.

by TrollAng 08.01.12 14:27

Does anyone know how much processing time it takes to update the info from submission to where it can be viewed by the public? Perhaps there is a backlog in processing.

by Liz Eagles 08.01.12 14:45

Pershing36 wrote:Will they need anything else. Surely the book will make them millionaires.

that depends on it being ONLY about the money.

by Pershing36 08.01.12 15:17

Well they already seem to have made enough friends in high places to stay in the limelight.

by Gillyspot 09.01.12 16:42

candyfloss wrote:Any sign yet of the accounts yet??

They are filed as of now but whether they were filed on time I don't know.

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

Apologies this is now right LOL

by Guest 09.01.12 16:44

Gillyspot, unless it's me having a mad moment, that link is for an unrelated company.

by Pershing36 09.01.12 16:47

Yeah I am getting a fabrications company.

by Guest 09.01.12 16:49

There's certainly a lot of fabricating going on here and that's probably caused the confusion!

by Gillyspot 09.01.12 16:50

Apologies everyone I was having a search afterwards & shared the wrong one.

It is here

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

by Guest 09.01.12 16:51

This just on twitter.............

w_nichtweissnicht

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] #mccann Fund accounts.

25 minutes ago

by Pershing36 09.01.12 16:57

Can anybody get into anything all I see is confirmation of date filed?

by Guest 09.01.12 16:59

I think that this means that the accounts were most likely received today and will be available for viewing later.

by **sharonl** 10.01.12 7:39

At last we have the accounts they will be uploaded shortly

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

by Advocatus 11.01.12 0:13

Thanks Sharon.

by Kepharel 30.01.12 18:08

Year Comparison	2008	2009	Increase/(Decrease)
1. Total Assets	1,115,000	740,000	(375,000)
2. Cash	572,000	720,000	148,000
'Other' Assets (1 minus 2)	543,000	20,000	(523,000)

Hi,

Overall total assets decreased by £375K, however cash increased by £148K. Therefore the value of Non Cash (Other) Assets fell by £523K. This is why ,overall, the net worth of the company fell.

Without detailed figures I would suggest the 'Other Assets' in 2008 (£543K) included an expected cash receipt provided for but not maturing until 2009, that's why in 2009 cash went up and 'other' assets went down once the provision had indeed matured into cash.

Now if the £500K receipt recognised in 2008 came in during 2009, but cash was only up by £148K at the end of the year then it would suggest that heavy 'in year' spending during 2009 kinda gobbled it all up.

Hope that makes sense

by Pershing36 30.01.12 21:17

Kepharel wrote:
Year Comparison 2008 2009 Increase/(Decrease)
1. Total Assets 1,115,000 740,000 (375,000)
2. Cash 572,000 720,000 148,000
'Other' Assets (1 minus 2) 543,000 20,000 (523,000)

Hi,

Overall total assets decreased by £375K, however cash increased by £148K. Therefore the value of Non Cash (Other) Assets fell by £523K. This is why ,overall, the net worth of the company fell.

Without detailed figures I would suggest the 'Other Assets' in 2008 (£543K) included an expected cash receipt provided for but not maturing until 2009, that's why in 2009 cash went up and 'other' assets went down once the provision had indeed matured into cash.

Now if the £500K receipt recognised in 2008 came in during 2009, but cash was only up by £148K at the end of the year then it would suggest that heavy 'in year' spending during 2009 kinda gobbled it all up.

Hope that makes sense

It is all very strange but I doubt we will ever get the information. One thing is for sure they are not giving it to the poor!!

They should run out of money in the next couple of months but I doubt they will. They will find some millionaire to prop up there quest.

The public see what they want to see, they are Doctors so they must be 'wonderful' people. People will continue to give them money.

Latest topics