Psychic News, SNU Spiritualist National Union and Liquidator

It would appear that whatever is happening is very much behind closed doors I just hope the NEC are not concocting another Black Adder like scheme another cunning plan B.....

This posted elsewhere by Public Eye
Psychic News assets for sale
by publiceye Today at 0:00


I recived an email Last night at 21.50, to say that the assets of Psychic press 1995 will be for sale The Deadline for reponses is 4pm on friday 25th March 2011. offers of over £150,000. I and other intrested partys have been unable to contact the Liquidators to get a full picture of what is actualy for sale, as she seems to have not come in yet all morning then went strait to lunch.
The Email States that Quote An indefinite licence to publish the paper and to hold and
use the archives. UnQuote.

I replied
Re: Psychic News assets for sale
by Admin Today at 12:42


Thanks Public Eye, if your information is correct (I am sure you have been close enough to be accurate) then they are after an awful lot of money for what they are offering.

I am concerned of this of an indefinite licence. If the assets are up for sale then they belong to the buyer, indeed to be up for sale thay must have always belonged to Psychic Press 1995 Ltd. What is clear is that the SNU would not sell these assets if they were the owner, they made that clear back in August last year so who or what is the licence coming from.

This of a "licence" sounds like a way to make the dishonourable NEC sound better about making their, now transparently incorrect, statement that the "owned them". I suspect we see some weasel words from their self appointed liquidator to create some spin. This gives them a strange chance to say, we own them but out of the kindness of our hearts we will give a licence to a buyer to recover Creditors money (of which they are likely to receive a fair chunk as a major creditor). Then if the buyer falls over the assets go back to the SNU.

Utter bosh from the look of it, as I would expect any intelligent thinking person will probably realise. Had the assets actually belonged to the SNU they would have kept them and told everyone to go away. They have made that very clear at all stages in this terribly sad and sorry saga

In that case the liquidation would be over now in a totally insolvent way with only the Liquidator getting paid out.

Well thats my take on it based upon events to date.

Mac asked whether further clarification could be given

Mac,

I am not certain

For the sake of simplicity it would appear that the Liquidator is putting the masthead and archives up for sale, for 150,000 pounds or more.

Now we know that the SNU claimed ownership of these assets. If that were the case then the liquidator would have nothing to sell.

Therefore Psychic Press 1995 must have owned the assets. The declaration made by the SNU (on their website, at the Creditors meeting and in August last year) of owning these assets must have been incorrect. Indeed as they did not own them then Psychic Press 1995 did.

Indeed last August, when the Directors knew the Company was insolvent, their first duty was to protect the creditors, not shareholders, from losses in a liquidation. So as PP 1995 owned those assets they should then have sold out to the JV Trust to prevent further losses.

However, that was then and now the Liquidator is offering the assets for sale. To raise the maximum for the Creditors these should go to the highest bidder. However, it appears that her offer to sell is conditional as it is only for an indefinite licence for the use of the masthead and archives.

Now this would mean that once the use of the masthead and archives ceases then the ownership would revert to someone.

It is, however, rather unclear whether
1. The buyer must grant an indefinite licence of use to the SNU or
2. Someone gives the buyer, for a large sum of money, a licence to use the masthead and archives so long as the paper stays in print.

Neither seems likely
A. I can hardly invisage a buyer paying all that money and then handing an indefinite license of use to the SNU.
B. Who would be granting the buyer just a licence for something they are buying from the liquidator. If the assets belong to PP 1995, a company which should go on to be liquidated, then there is no residual owner to grant a licence or take the assets back. In this case I can only believe it is a creation of the liquidator to enable the SNU to retain some hold over the assets albeit they are unintitled to.

Of course if over 150,000 is paid it is not entirely impossible that the company liquidation would cease, especially if the SNU forgave some of their debt (or left it as outstanding) and all the other creditors were paid out. Psychic Press 1995 would then remain in existence, having granted a license of use for the time the new publisher was in existence. The SNU would stll own PP 1995 and if the new publication failed ownership would revert to PP 1995 and therefore the SNU.

You can see all the elements of my earlier premonition, an NEC Blackadder Cunning Plan, falling into place. If all the other creditors are paid leaving only the SNU unpaid they can keep the Company alive and then when the new publisher falls over they get the assets back.

Of course they are, as the mouthpiece of a large body of Spiritualists, in a position where they may be able to hasten the end by trying to influence the circulation. Of course, if perchance a Trust bought the licence, they may also try to stress to some third party that a trust supporting a commercially invalid business is operating outside the guidelines of the charity commissioners, the very reason they claimed the SNU were unable to continue support.

However, I am sure anyone stumping up the money would not fall into the trap of safeguards on those issues. Then if also the licence was entirely unconditional, free and perpetual it may be an alternate way to move forward in this morass, However for a licence for something which needs investment to get it going again the price is far too high.

Surely the UK Company law has not become do wimpish and owner friendly that the NEC and a Liquidator can be allowed to pull off such an unethical and unspiritual stunt. We all realise that both of those parties seem to want this but can they?

The final question I have is what happens with Public Eyes Company and Trade Mark registration?

On another thread publiceye gave us some great enlightenment to the crazy world of the NEC and their Liquidator

Re: Psychic News assets for sale
by publiceye Yesterday at 21:36


The liqidator owns the company, but because the newspaper went into liquidation five months after they stopped printing it and the fact that they anounced on the SNU web site that they were not liqudating the company, but keeping it for the sale of the books. Coppled with this I started my company before they liquidated their company and their company liquidated at a later date after they had stoped using the name. They have no rights to that name, Good will can only be estabished if a comany is trading with the name at the time of liquidation, as soon as a company stops trading then good will can not be estabilsed and that is the UK law.
I taked to the liqidator yesterday and I pointed that out to her, I also told her that I have taken legal advice about people trading using the name that I own. She told me that the only asets that are for sale are the arcives not the name. I pointed out to her that her add said the liecence to use the name Psychic News, she said that this was going to be changed. I also pointed out that arcives for any British newspaper are held at the British libary and they can be accesed by anyone. The company is for sale, but their is nothing to sell.
I have taken legal advice from lawyers who specialize in Intelectual property and company names and I have been adviced that even if someone uses my name without my permmision them the assets of anything used in the prosses will be taken by the court and they will have to pay a hefty fine.
I have been told that the SNU are willing to go into a jiont venture to get the paper back out and that it is the other two partys that will not work with them. The SNU opposed my trade make and are now open to pay the leagal costs, for that as you can only oppose a mark if you are the legal owner which has now been clearly estabished that they are not.
I think it was all a plan to not pay the creditors and still have the paper, this is because, why try to trade mark a name at the same time place on their web site that they will not be bringing the paper back out. If I had not applyed for the trade mark first they would have been able to do this.
I now have two papers online under my company Psychic News LTD and the both paper will go to print as soon as all the legal issues are finalised.
Someone made a coment that they seam to know what they were doing on an earlyer post. I think that buy the end of all this people will see just how thick some people really are. I have paid for experts to sort this when it could have all been sorted if people would just talk to each other insted of ignoring them, but at the end of the day they have to listen and pay the price of their actions. I ask all the people involved in this situation to sit down and talk, I am sure that everyone just wants a newspaper that they can have a vioce out their. I have been given backing form my local council to publish my papers and I am now considering putting this paper my self, just to get it out their.

I replied

publiceye wrote:
I taked to the liqidator yesterday and I pointed that out to her, I also told her that I have taken legal advice about people trading using the name that I own. She told me that the only asets that are for sale are the arcives not the name. I pointed out to her that her add said the liecence to use the name Psychic News, she said that this was going to be changed. I also pointed out that arcives for any British newspaper are held at the British libary and they can be accesed by anyone.
I have been told that the SNU are willing to go into a jiont venture to get the paper back out and that it is the other two partys that will not work with them.

What a muddled web, your comment about her having to change the ad because she cannot sell the title Psychic News is interesting. It seems that having said she would talk to you earlier she failed to and has left the whole thing in a worse state. I do believe that if Psychic Press 1995 was resurrected and began to produce the paper again its existing rights to the name, established over so many years, would be a sufficient defence for them. However I have always wondered about the right to transfer the name elsewhere which would cause conflict with your company and name registrations.

The point about a joint venture is laughable, why would anyone else join in a joint venture. Presumably the idea was to pay out all the debts which would mean if the SNU contributed they would get all that back and a bonus as their debt was paid out. What a cunning idea of theirs but after their appalling behaviour on all this and the stunts they have pulled why would anybody go into a partnership with them. Clearly this was just another cunning plan concocted between the NEC and their appointed liquidator.

Indeed it was not just the cost of paying out the creditors but can you really imagine the SNU shelling out their proportion of the expense involved in relaunching Psychic News, Losses, Advertising, Wages etc., until it reached break even. As an experienced senior Finance Manager I would be surprised if you had any change left out of 150,000 ponds to do that part.

The NEC reminds me of the monkey with its hand stuck in the cookie jar. In this case it is to hold onto the masthead and archives. They have kept going on and on thus causing more harm to others as well as damaging the SNU's reputation. Scarily. although this is a creditors liquidation, it appears they have had the help of the two firms of liquidators who they appointed to come up with new ideas one also presumes that the Committee of Inspection is unable to have any impact or is being ignored. Surely someone should have told them long ago to let go of these things and move on.

I think it was all a plan to not pay the creditors and still have the paper, this is because, why try to trade mark a name at the same time place on their web site that they will not be bringing the paper back out. If I had not applyed for the trade mark first they would have been able to do this.

Well had not the whistle been blown on here, which lit some sort of a fire, it is clear to me PP1995 would have been liquidated prior to the SNU convention in Blackpool. Yes publiceye you state a very important point...Had the SNU owned the masthead they would not have tried to register a trade mark. Had they done so they would have just let the creditors go I suspect. In honesty publiceye it appears your action may lead to some monies paid out as a bonus to stopping another cunning plan of theirs.

publiceye has also given us more information

Re: Psychic News assets for sale
by publiceye Today at 17:50


The invite to buy the comany also states that Quote: A percentage interest ( of up to 100%) in a charitable company owning the rights to be licensed as above. unquote.
This looks like another cunning plan, as if the newspaper was a charitable company then any owner that is a charitable organisation would be able to fun the running of it without having to explain to the charitys commisioner why they are investing all their members money it.
I asked the liquidator why the asets were for sale as a charitable comany, when this was not the case of the liquidated comany and her only responce was, it dose not have to be. So why was that statment in their? I will leve people to come to their own conclusion of that one.
It seams to me if a rule can't be got round then lets change the rule. A charity can not fund a buisness that is running at a loss, but it can fun a charity that is not making aprofit.
Something to think about

My reply was

Re: Psychic News assets for sale
by Admin Today at 19:24


Thanks publiceye if a liquidator is being paid by the NEC one wonders how justice can be done for the creditors. Especially when the NEC/SNU have proven to be so careless of their spiritual and ethical behaviour.

** STOP PRESS ** Ownership of Psychic Press assets determined
This headline comes from a special edition of Spirit of PN and the story is on a new thread on the forum.
http://spiritofpn.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/stop-press-ownership-of-psychic-press-assets-determined/

This is also carried by Roy Stemman in Paranormal Review
https://web.archive.org/web/20110711191752/http://paranormalreview.com/articles/20110322

The approved brief statement by the liquidator was, to quote these two sources;

As a result of discussions between the parties involved and following legal advice, it has been determined that the disputed assets referred to in the November 17, 2010, joint statement belong to Psychic Press (1995) Ltd, now in liquidation.

Now quite a difference from the SNU's claim , made last August, that they owned the assets, a claim they reaffirmed on their website. Of course much of their previous comments about Psychic Press (1995) have now been removed from the web site, not surprisingly.

Of course this statement from the liquidator vindicates the points made by the STF last August. Very interesting because although the SNU was told quite clearly that they did not own the assets they refused to accept it. They also went on to pull the Liquidation and try to register a trade mark.

Hmm... history shows the NEC and directors should have been aware that the assets belonged to Psychic Press 1995. It may appear, from the SNU's attempt to register a trade mark, plus stopping the first liquidation, that they were, in truth, aware of it.

Despite this knowledge they refused to sell PP1995 with ALL of its assets to the JV Trust,  when the offer was made in August 2010. They knew full well no one would buy the company without all of the assets but prevented the sale by this claim of SNU ownership for the Masthead and Archives.

What terrible harm the NEC have done by this refusal. PP1995 would have been taken over as a going concern and Psychic News would have been back in print long ago. None of the Creditors or, more importantly, none of the staff would have lost anything.

Additionally all the ongoing agony, pain and suffering, for so many people, would have been prevented. Indeed the relationships between key players in the UK Spiritualist World would have been preserved if stretched a little. One can only wonder how the SNU could restore a future relationship with either the JV Trust or the STF.

Hmm publiceye, given the latest news we have, about the ownership of Masthead and Archives, I have been thinking about your comment about the masthead. It does appear to me that the Liquidator can, of course, sell the masthead Psychic News to a willing purchasor. Indeed it may be in the best interests of the Creditors that she does. Psychic Press 1995 would always have the right to use that name, on a historical basis, if it was revived and brought the publication back out.

I think a bigger question, you might like to pose to her, is why she would not or would not advertise it for sale. In the end, when you look at it, it is the buyers decision whether they can print or not and your decision whether you will, or can, oppose the use of the Masthead. That may influence the price paid but not the ability to sell the asset.

Once again we get amazing synchronicity with the SNU's stop press announcement of a big purchase.
http://spiritualismlink.forumotion.com/t1060-the-arthur-findlay-learning-conference-centre-in-stafford

Followers of this topic should also look at the latest effort by the NEC as they cause more harm and distress.


http://spiritualismlink.forumotion.com/t1081-spiritualist-national-union-snu-nec-ban-eric-hattons-book#5716

I have heard that they have spent 1 million pounds on a new AFC centre in Edinburgh from a comment in Spirit of PN. Read more about it here. Criminal isn't it they refuse help to save Psychic News and safeguard everyone concerned and then start throwing money about as if it grew on trees.

http://spiritualismlink.forumotion.com/t1060-the-arthur-findlay-learning-conference-centre-in-stafford#5722

I have also posted some revised thoughts about why they acted upon Psychic news here
http://spiritualismlink.forumotion.com/t889-spiritualist-national-union-snu-close-psychic-news-why#5726
This follows through Roy Stemman's article "A Question of Ethics"

Hello on another thread Public eye states that she has just received details of an attempt to Trade mark Psychic News by the SNU on the 19th May 2011

The application will apear in the trade mark journal from 20 May 2011, I did not even notice this when the let ter came this morning.
The letter reads Quote;
Dear Sir or Madam

UK Trade Mark No: 2557851 in class 16
for the Mark: Psychic News
Proprietor's name: Psychic News

This letter is to advise you that we have receivied an application for a trade mark that may be similar or identical to the trade mark number shown above which you own. the details of the mark that has been applied for are attached.

We will not automatically reject a trade mark application simply because there is an earlier mark that may be similar or adentical. However, it is open to the owners of earlier trade marks to try to prevent the registration of this mark on the basis of an earlier mark. If you wish to do this you need to make use of our opposition procedure. Unquote
The letter States that the aplicant of the later mark is
Spiritualists National Union, Redwood, Stansted Hall. Stansted, Essex. CM24 8UD, United Kingdom.

Class 41 Publishers of newspapers an periodicals on the Internet and hard copy magazines [printed publications].

Service: Graham J Hewitt.

If you are still in doupt, check it out on Intelectual property Ref. UK mark 2560680.

This looks very strange suddenly appearing as it does at what must surely be nearly the end of the liquidation process. Why would they try it on again now it really sounds very dodgy. Sounds like the NEC trying to pull a swift one.

While we await for news of the liquidators processes I responded with the following to a question by Mac about the Trade mark issues raised by public eye.

Re: Snu made new aplication to trade mark Psychic News
by Admin Today at 16:23

.Hi Mac,

I am not sure of the absolute facts here but it appears that the SNU have made an application to register the trade mark for Psychic News firstly in October 2010 and then a revison in May 2011, on the 19th. Given Public Eyes prior rights in this matter I would assume the Intellectual Property Office would have contaced her, which has caused her to share the information with us.

Now if I suggest this is very underhand let me put it in the context of events to date.

The SNU were, as we all are aware, the owners of Psychic Press(1995) Pty Ltd.

In April last year a select group of the NEC and directors of PP (!995) met with a Liquidator and decided that the Company was trading Insolvently and should be liquidated.

From what has been published both here and on Paranormal Review we know they tried quietly to place the company into Liquidation in June 2010. However news of their attempt filtered out and causing protests which led them to back away from an early liquidation.

The NEC were offered money to clear the debts and market the paper properly but refused it. Subsequently they closed Psychic news on 24th July and went about putting the business into liquidation.

They delayed this to deal with an offer for the whole company Psychic Press (1995) which they received from the JV Trust and its chairman Eric Hatton in August. However, they claimed prior ownership of the Masthead and Archives for the SNU, meaning they would not include these in the sale. At this time the Spiritual Truth Foundation pointed out that this was incorrect and the assets were owned by Psychic Press (1995). This fact the SNU's NEC refused to accept. With the refusal to include the key assets the offer by the JV Trust was withdrawn.

At that point the NEC, having taken over effective control of PP (1995) from its board during July, decided to pursue the liquidation.

It is worth noting that since April the NEC knew that PP (1995) was trading insolvently and would liquidate in an insolvent matter. Under UK law once Directors are aware of this they have a duty to look after the Creditors and protect their position not that of the Shareholders. Their duty was to minimise the loss to employees and creditors. They failed to do this when they caused the JV Trust to withdraw from purchasing the Company. Had they accepted this offer no losses would have been incurred by any of the stakeholders in the company and the SNU may have even received some payment for the business.

The liquidation commenced with Berley's in September but for whatever reason the NEC cancelled it. It could have been the charges the Liquidators were proposing, the level of protest that was occuring, or even the fact the Liquidator would have to confirm who owned the key assets, PP(1995) or the SNU.

After the liquidation had been cancelled the SNU tried to register a Trade Mark for PN to safeguard its claimed "ownership", fortunately Public Eye was there first and this application was made public and blocked.

At this stage the NEC took PP(1995) into liquidation with a new Company Marsh Hammond. However under the storm of protest the liquidators decided to study the ownership of the Masthead and Archives. What we all now know is that the SNU were found NOT to own thse key assets. The NEC therefore continued to incur debts, fail to pay out its staff when they should have sold the company in August to the JV Trust (Masthead and Archives included) to prevent all of these intolerable losses and the emotional hurt to employees.

After considerable delay we know that Ms Marsh the liquidator advertised the assets of the company for 150,000 pounds or to the highest bidder. Offers should have closed by March 14 (I think it was from a copy of the advert in Psychic World that someone posted elsewhere) but clearly this did not happen and other wrangling has gone on. We still await notice of what is happening to these assets as of now.


Now I cannot believe that the SNU would pay money for something they thought they were going to get for nothing. Therefore it may appear that, if public eye is correct, they are attempting to grab hold of the assets through the back door method of pushing through a Trade Mark application.

Now it appears likely that at the same time Ms Marsh may be negotiating with other parties over an offer for the assets which includes the Masthead and Archives. Of course if the NEC get the Trade Mark registration then they can make it more difficult for any new owner.

On the basis of what we have seen, during the course of this whole affair, behaviour like this is entirely consistent with all of the appalling things done so far. If it is a true statement of affairs the NEC could even be seen as trying to steal an asset by stealth from someone buying it in good faith so that the creditors could receive a partial pay out. This despite their direct involvement placing the company in liquidation, losing money for employees and creditors.

Oh well we can be sure that the truth will eventually come out, even if sadly we have to wait a while longer. I do hope that there has been no re application for the trade mark, it would be such a tawdry act by the NEC of a Spiritualist body to still try and defy their ethical duty to finally step aside and let things move on.

After considerable delay we know that Ms Marsh the liquidator advertised the assets of the company for 150,000 pounds or to the highest bidder. Offers should have closed by March 14 (I think it was from a copy of the advert in Psychic World that someone posted elsewhere) but clearly this did not happen and other wrangling has gone on. We still await notice of what is happening to these assets as of now.


Now I cannot believe that the SNU would pay money for something they thought they were going to get for nothing. Therefore it may appear that, if public eye is correct, they are attempting to grab hold of the assets through the back door method of pushing through a Trade Mark application.

Now it appears likely that at the same time Ms Marsh may be negotiating with other parties over an offer for the assets which includes the Masthead and Archives. Of course if the NEC get the Trade Mark registration then they can make it more difficult for any new owner.

On the basis of what we have seen, during the course of this whole affair, behaviour like this is entirely consistent with all of the appalling things done so far. If it is a true statement of affairs the NEC could even be seen as trying to steal an asset by stealth from someone buying it in good faith so that the creditors could receive a partial pay out. This despite their direct involvement placing the company in liquidation, losing money for employees and creditors.

Oh well we can be sure that the truth will eventually come out, even if sadly we have to wait a while longer. I do hope that there has been no re application for the trade mark, it would be such a tawdry act by the NEC of a Spiritualist body to still try and defy their ethical duty to finally step aside and let things move on..

Intersting, I posted the above back in May and still nothing has happened. Unless the NEC are planning some form of glorious announcement at the forthcoming SNU AGM, I would presume that they and the liquidator are still trying to make it extremely hard for someone to actually buy these assets. Of course this would get some money together to part pay the creditors.

After all this time my bets are on no distribution, with the protracted time absorbing any surplus in extra costs. Given everything the NEC have done to try and defend the indefensible in closing PP1995, acting as badly as they have while still trying to hang on to masthead and archive, my bets are on continued misbehaviour by them to try to stifle the sale.

Please look at the latest news which has come out of the AGM and the interim Papers prepared for it. I wonder if, even now, the NEC are trying to pull off yet another cunning stunt.

http://spiritualismlink.forumotion.com/t1117-spiritualist-national-union-psychic-news-sale-to-jv-trust#6003

Since publiceye mentioned the continued attempt by the SNU to register a trade mark registration I have been monitoring the UK IPO site regularly
now if you go to http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-find/t-find-number.htm and type in the number 2560680 you will find the SNU have succesfully registered the Trade Mark

Case details for Trade Mark 2560680
Mark

Mark text:
Psychic News PN Psychic News
Status
Status:
Registered
Class:
41
Relevant dates
Filing date:
06 October 2010
Next renewal date:
06 October 2020
Registration date:
29 July 2011
Publication in Trade Marks Journal
First advert:
Journal:
6888
Publication date:
20 May 2011
Registration:
Journal:
6900
Publication date:
12 August 2011
List of goods or services
Class 41:
Publishers of newspapers and periodicals on the Internet and hard copy magazines [printed publications].

Names and addresses
Proprietor:
Spiritualists National Union
Redwood, Stansted Hall, Stansted, Essex, CM24 8UD
Residence country:
United Kingdom
Customer's ref:
SNU/PN.GJH
ADP number:
0978809001


Service:
Graham J Hewitt
Meadow Garth, High Street, Duddington, Stamford, Lincolnshire, PE9 3QE
ADP number:
0978812001
Earlier rights notification
Opted in for notifications

Notifications sent on 18 May 2011 to:
2557851

So they registered it after they had got rid of one Liquidator and before the new one was appointed. Clearly they must have doubted their own claim of asset ownership so were trying something on to make it more credible. At a guess they will probably claim it was an attempt to register it for some valid reason.

Its very curious because it could be a significant block to anyone wanting to buy the assets of PP 1995 and publish a new PN, unless the SNU assign the Trade Mark. Indeed unless they intended to assign it, once they knew they never owned the assets, it could seriously diminish the asset values. Of course this is to the detriment of the creditors who lost money from their actions in liquidating not selling PP 1995.

It also appears to have been done as quietly as possible. None of us would have known without privateeye highlighting the issue, which is entirely keeping with every step along the way in this matter. Now as we all know we could hope they did all of this for the right reasons. However the history of this sad sorry saga (with the pain it has inflicted on people) would suggest our doubts about the motives of the NEC are well founded.

Hopefully we will soon find out what exactly is happening.

Well at last the final news is in Psychic News has been bought by the JV Trust. We just need an explanation of why the SNU did not do the right thing and sell it to them back in August 2010.

Being sore losers is not good enough the NEC should fall prostrate on the ground and apologise to all Spiritualists for the lengthy delay and damage they caused by their actions.

Something more substantial than an apology to the staff would be good too.

Oh absolutely Wes

It is great news and seeing how lively the Spirit of PN site can get, I can't wait to see what sort of online presence a reincarnated PN will have