Annual Accounts Are in !

Ayfive wrote:

AJS wrote:"Why would they need to?

The writ for the "Libel Case", call it what you will, was not in the name of The Foundation (as it is called in the Articles of Association).
The McCanns are left with that particular bomb firmly in their pocket. There are devices by which they could lay their hands on Foundation money to settle most if not all of any bill they receive but that cannot be seen as legitimate outstanding debt of The Foundation attaching from a derogation to provide a directors loan which may or may not be requested or granted."

I have no argument with what you've written but I'm not sure what you mean by "devices by which they could lay their hands on Foundation money to settle ...bill".  

No devices are needed. Payment of legal costs for Gerry and Kate McCann does not derive directly from the articles of association but, as far as I remember,  from a formal decision by the directors some years ago  after it was argued that the case against Amaral could be considered part of the "search" for the child (because his activities were prejudicial to said "search")  and that therefore paying legal costs for the couple came within the ambit of the search  clause in the articles.   

I don’t normally quote press articles but it was this authorization that Mitchell was referring to – and, naturally, attempting to strengthen and familiarise the public with  – in his February 2017 multi-tabloid blitz.  

“If they are ordered to pay Mr Amaral's legal costs, the money may have to come from the Find Madeleine fund - which has dwindled to around £480,000.

The friend added: "Any award made would have gone into the Madeleine's Fund to help find their daughter and would never have been used for Kate and Gerry's own use.

"And the whole point of the libel action was to try and stop Mr Amaral spreading wicked and false lies which they felt hampered the search for Madeleine."

But no doubt you are aware of all this.

Try looking at it for what it is. A legal action in which we have:
Legal Person 1 = Gerald McCann (a natural person)
Legal Person 2 = Kate McCann (a natural person)
Legal Person 3 = Madeleines Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd (a Legal Fiction)
Legal Person 4 = Goncalo Amaral (a natural person)
Legal Person 5 = The group comprising the publisher, video maker et al (Legal Fictions)

Legal Persons 1 & 2 initiate an action against Legal Persons 4&5 which LPs 1 & 2 lose. A hitherto unspecified sum of money then being payable to/through the Portuguese court system, by LPs 1 & 2, under whatever terms have been agreed. The terms if any have not been publicised.

Legal Person 3 does not play any part in this action. Any liability resultant from this action attaches to LPs 1 and 2 or LPs 4 and 5. In this instance it is LPs 1 & 2, how they discharge this liability is up to them.
There is therefore no legal reason for LP3 to make any reference to it in the annual accounts, having no enforceable liability.
Some may not like this but that's the way it is.

Admin wrote:

Ayfive wrote:

AJS wrote:"Why would they need to?

The writ for the "Libel Case", call it what you will, was not in the name of The Foundation (as it is called in the Articles of Association).
The McCanns are left with that particular bomb firmly in their pocket. There are devices by which they could lay their hands on Foundation money to settle most if not all of any bill they receive but that cannot be seen as legitimate outstanding debt of The Foundation attaching from a derogation to provide a directors loan which may or may not be requested or granted."

I have no argument with what you've written but I'm not sure what you mean by "devices by which they could lay their hands on Foundation money to settle ...bill".  

No devices are needed. Payment of legal costs for Gerry and Kate McCann does not derive directly from the articles of association but, as far as I remember,  from a formal decision by the directors some years ago  after it was argued that the case against Amaral could be considered part of the "search" for the child (because his activities were prejudicial to said "search")  and that therefore paying legal costs for the couple came within the ambit of the search  clause in the articles.   

I don’t normally quote press articles but it was this authorization that Mitchell was referring to – and, naturally, attempting to strengthen and familiarise the public with  – in his February 2017 multi-tabloid blitz.  

“If they are ordered to pay Mr Amaral's legal costs, the money may have to come from the Find Madeleine fund - which has dwindled to around £480,000.

The friend added: "Any award made would have gone into the Madeleine's Fund to help find their daughter and would never have been used for Kate and Gerry's own use.

"And the whole point of the libel action was to try and stop Mr Amaral spreading wicked and false lies which they felt hampered the search for Madeleine."

But no doubt you are aware of all this.

Try looking at it for what it is. A legal action in which we have:
Legal Person 1 = Gerald McCann (a natural person)
Legal Person 2 = Kate McCann (a natural person)
Legal Person 3 = Madeleines Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd (a Legal Fiction)
Legal Person 4 = Goncalo Amaral (a natural person)
Legal Person 5 = The group comprising the publisher, video maker et al (Legal Fictions)

Legal Persons 1 & 2 initiate an action against Legal Persons 4&5 which LPs 1 & 2 lose. A hitherto unspecified sum of money then being payable to/through the Portuguese court system, by LPs 1 & 2, under whatever terms have been agreed. The terms if any have not been publicised.

Legal Person 3 does not play any part in this action. Any liability resultant from this action attaches to LPs 1 and 2 or LPs 4 and 5. In this instance it is LPs 1 & 2, how they discharge this liability is up to them.
There is therefore no legal reason for LP3 to make any reference to it in the annual accounts, having no enforceable liability.
Some may not like this but that's the way it is.

Meanwhile, L.P.'s 1 and 2, in this case, still have to pay up, one way or the other, and that they do not appear to have done.

As we have seen in this case, through the various leaks, someone, let's shall we say Leak Person 1,2 0r any other number you may choose, will provide a relevant leak of the relevant kind.

Ayfive. wrote:

I suspect they will cough up in the time honoured British fashion......."on the steps of the law courts".

Texty wrote:

Ayfive. wrote:

I suspect they will cough up in the time honoured British fashion......."on the steps of the law courts".

Yes, and my personal opinion is that the application to the ECHR is more about being seen to contest the disastrous litigation outcome than anything else. In the unlikely event that the ECHR agrees to hear the complaint  (especially in view of the fact that the Supreme Court awaited the ECHR's ruling in the previous similar case involving Portugal, and ruled in line with it) the most that the McCanns could expect would probably be some sort of compensation from the Portuguese state, years down the line, which would be of no consequence to Amaral.

The ECHR couldn't be much clearer when it states:

" The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions. The Court will not intercede directly on your behalf with the authority you are complaining about. In exceptional circumstances the Court may, however, grant interim measures. As a matter of practice it only does so where there is a serious risk of physical harm to the applicant".

Texty wrote:

Ayfive. wrote:

I suspect they will cough up in the time honoured British fashion......."on the steps of the law courts".

Yes, and my personal opinion is that the application to the ECHR is more about being seen to contest the disastrous litigation outcome than anything else. In the unlikely event that the ECHR agrees to hear the complaint  (especially in view of the fact that the Supreme Court awaited the ECHR's ruling in the previous similar case involving Portugal, and ruled in line with it) the most that the McCanns could expect would probably be some sort of compensation from the Portuguese state, years down the line, which would be of no consequence to Amaral.

The ECHR couldn't be much clearer when it states:

" The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions. The Court will not intercede directly on your behalf with the authority you are complaining about. In exceptional circumstances the Court may, however, grant interim measures. As a matter of practice it only does so where there is a serious risk of physical harm to the applicant".