Re: Psychic Press to go into creditors voluntary liquidation

by Admin Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:28 am

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.
Admin

by Admin Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:05 am

** 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
http://www.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.

by Admin Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:18 am

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.

by Admin Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:37 am

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

by Admin Sun May 08, 2011 3:26 am

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

by publiceye Sun May 08, 2011 12:14 pm

The statement on this site about legal advice taken, and stating that Psychic press 1995 ltd owend the name psychic news. I ask who this legal advisor was, as I also took legal advice and was informed that the law is quite clear on this issue. A company can only clame good will to a name, if they were trading with that name at the point of liquidation and that no other company is trading in that name. As I have clear evidence that Psychic Press continued to trade after the demise of their newspaper Psychic news as a publishing company selling books. I started my company Psychic News Ltd, before this comanpy was put into liquidation and was trading with my company then, No one can claim that name or goodwill except my company.
The company psychic press 1995 was sold, I know this because I put an offer in to buy the company and was out bid, dispite the fact that I made a good offer for assets that amonted to nothing. I was informed that the liquidators had recived a better offer. I think that taking the advice of all 31 Trade mark solicitors in scotland and slowly working through trade make law over and over again. I have become an expert in trade mark and company law over the last few years. so please tell me who thinks all of these people are wrong and why do they think they are above the law.
Psychic News Ltd has been trading from this web site 6TH of September 2010 and has over a thousand visitors a month to the site.
www.psychicsnews.co.uk

The company will in the next few days be bringing out a second newspaper which will be a local scottish newspaper on a new domaine name at www.newarkcomet.co.uk.

As this company has traded for nine month and has pending trademark and copyright with no legal oposition outstanding I also have had this company regiserd as a trading company with companys house, who have assured me that I have the right to that name and the only right to trade under it.

If Psychic Press 1995 had regiserd the name with companys house or with intellectual property then I would have been unable to for a company with that name. and as no company was trading with the name at the point of registration,then the companies Act 2006 States that goodwill can not be claimed.

by Admin Tue May 10, 2011 4:28 am

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

by Admin Tue May 10, 2011 5:49 am

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"

by Admin Fri May 20, 2011 2:48 am

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.

by mac Fri May 20, 2011 6:57 am

"Sounds like the NEC trying to pull a swift one."

In light of their despicable behaviour thus far it might be odd if this disreputable group did not try yet again to achieve their ends.....

One can only shake one's head in disbelief and dismay at what has been happening over all the past long months - and the situation is still far from resolved.

by Admin Fri May 20, 2011 7:08 am

agreed Mac

by Admin Tue May 31, 2011 6:56 am

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 and then a revison in May, 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 asisde and let things move on.

by Admin Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:31 am

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.

by mac Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:15 am

The whole, sorry situation beggars belief...... Rolling Eyes

by zerdini Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:17 am

Rumours are circulating, (and I stress they are only rumours) but may have some basis in fact, that the the liquidator has sold the old Psychic Press computers to the SNU.

As these contain the database of subscribers and subscription lists etc an unholy squabble has apparently broken out with legal advice being sought.

This may account for the delay in the sale of PN to the JV Trust and the consequent delay in the announcement in 'Spirit of PN' regarding the purchase.

IF this is the case it seems that the SNU are trying to thwart the relaunch of PN as they are hardly likely to want to see a success where they failed.

I wonder if this will be raised at the AGM?

by Wes Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:17 am

I wonder what Them Upstairs think of all this...

by Lis Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:28 am

Interesting rumour Z. I guess we will have to wait and see whether there is any substance to it. That said, it would not surprise me what the SNU could do based on the sort of conduct they have exhibited in the past in regard to PN.

As for the AGM, one can only hope that questions will be asked about PN and the disgusting actions against Eric Hatton, and the many other questionable actions on the part of the SNU executives in recent times. I fear, however, that the NEC will have tried their hardest to put a clamp on anyone trying to raise the issues or who try to bring the NEC to account for their actions.

As for Them Upstairs, Wes, seeing the conduct of an organization meant to represent Spiritualism behaving so badly, might cause them to consider it would be better to see that organization crumble into non-existence rather than to have it continue to sully the name of that great movement it is meant to support.

by zerdini Thu Jul 07, 2011 4:46 am

If previous AGM's are anything to go by the usual tactic in dealing with awkward questions is to say "please raise that under 'Any other Business'" which is dealt with on Sunday afternoon when most delegates have gone home or back to their respective churches. The few delegates that are left are usually unwilling to make a fuss. It's all very carefully orchestrated! Rolling Eyes

by Lis Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:09 am

Yes, indeed Z I would not be at all surprised to learn that any attempts to ask questions from the floor of the meeting might be relegated to a time when many had left. But, perhaps some enterprising individuals took note of comments made elsewhere about the method of raising motions for inclusion on the Agenda prior to the meeting, and if so, it would be more difficult for these to be swept aside.

by zerdini Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:25 am

Lis wrote:Yes, indeed Z I would not be at all surprised to learn that any attempts to ask questions from the floor of the meeting might be relegated to a time when many had left. But, perhaps some enterprising individuals took note of comments made elsewhere about the method of raising motions for inclusion on the Agenda prior to the meeting, and if so, it would be more difficult for these to be swept aside.

It might happen but I remain sceptical.

"Shepherds may change but sheep remain sheep". Smile

by Lis Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:39 am

A hypothetical Question Z. If there was a motion of no confidence in the NEC on the Agenda how do you think it would be dealt with at the AGM

by zerdini Thu Jul 07, 2011 6:12 am

Lis wrote:A hypothetical Question Z. If there was a motion of no confidence in the NEC on the Agenda how do you think it would be dealt with at the AGM

I can safely say, Lis, that it would not appear on the Agenda. The NEC would make sure of that!

by mac Thu Jul 07, 2011 6:49 am

"As for Them Upstairs, Wes, seeing the conduct of an organization meant to represent Spiritualism behaving so badly, might cause them to consider it would be better to see that organization crumble into non-existence rather than to have it continue to sully the name of that great movement it is meant to support."

That's how I feel too, Lis.

Any organisation may cease to be fit for purpose and this one is certainly getting that way. It's anyone's guess what role Modern Spiritualism would then have - it has little enough already.....

Crying or Very sad

by Lis Thu Jul 07, 2011 7:12 am

Well, well! So you think Z that even a properly submitted motion, completed in the proper manner and within the time requirements as stated in the SNU Constitution and Byelaws would still not be included on the agenda?

If you are right then one really must suggest that those who hold the power within the SNU are entirely corrupt and berefit of any ethics, nevermind spirituality.

In any organization the membership should surely have the right to challenge those appointed to office when they have genuine concerns about their conduct. If such a right is being denied the members of the SNU then I begin to think that it really is time for the SNU to cease to exist.

It appears, unfortunately, that the only way that might be achieved is by the membership ceasing to be members, leaving the SNU without sufficient funds to keep operating. And, of course, also passively boycotting SNU run venues would help as well.

by Lis Thu Jul 07, 2011 7:19 am

Hi Mac,

It might be that with the demise of the SNU (which it appears to me is really time to see happen) that Spiritualism would further stumble and become even less relevant than it is now. However, it is also possible that out of the ashes of one defunct organization, especially one which has so thoroughly lost its way, might arise a new, and more democratic, representative, and forward thinking association. One that, is willing to actually represent the interests and concerns of its members, and is capable of conducting its affairs in accordance with spiritual values rather than self-serving or monetary interests.

But whatever happened I really begin to feel that it would still be best to see an end of the SNu, or at the very least, an end to those in power who seem to be willing to behave in an entirely reprehensible manner to suit themselves and without any real accountability.

by Sponsored content