Annual Accounts Are in !

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/0Irp3UzkoDKD1M9-5c_x54VMWHl8ADKCyM4gBfTvy2A/application-pdf

Not a lot to see, other than bugger all income, as expected.

Transparency. So transparent that you can look right through with nothing to see

Travers wrote:Transparency. So transparent that you can look right through with nothing to see

Rather like the case for abduction.

Well I have just read the full contents of the 'report'.

SEVERAL CLEAR CUT LIES.

Amaral is not discredited, he won the case.

It wasn't a libel case.

No proof that a case is lodged with the E.C.H.R., and any case has to be accepted.

So where is the proof a case has been lodged ?

Basically, the McCanns can't stop lying.

Even now after all that's happened they are still trying to con people.

Do they even have the vaguest idea the damage this will do, and what they have already done, to their two remaining children ?

P.S. Meanwhile the Mccanns still owe the Portuguese legal system a considerable amount of money and that will not go away.

If the submission to the ECHR was made in Summer 2017 why was it mentioned in the accounts finishing March 2017?

Slartibartfast wrote:If the submission to the ECHR was made in Summer 2017 why was it mentioned in the accounts finishing March 2017?

Precisely Slarti.

Also, of course, they asked after the Supreme Court decision for the decision to be set aside.

Now when exactly was that.................

I see the new director signed the accounts on 30th January. I wonder if it's all his work because there are a few bits of information in there which have not been shared before.

It seems the restricted funds are being invested rather than just sitting in the bank. These funds are restricted to being spent on the direct cost of searching for Madeleine, so not on libel trial costs, it seems.

Isobel Duarte is being paid by the fund. Whether a libel action by Madeleine's parents should be paid for by the fund is, in my opinion, a grey area. Does it come under the heading of 'helping the family'? That's no longer one of the aims of the fund.

It says the ECHR will provide a written judgement. The lack of a caveat suggests the ECHR have accepted their application.

Grom wrote:I see the new director signed the accounts on 30th January. I wonder if it's all his work because there are a few bits of information in there which have not been shared before.

It seems the restricted funds are being invested rather than just sitting in the bank. These funds are restricted to being spent on the direct cost of searching for Madeleine, so not on libel trial costs, it seems.

Isobel Duarte is being paid by the fund. Whether a libel action by Madeleine's parents should be paid for by the fund is, in my opinion, a grey area. Does it come under the heading of 'helping the family'? That's no longer one of the aims of the fund.

It says the ECHR will provide a written judgement. The lack of a caveat suggests the ECHR have accepted their application.  

If it has been accepted, there should be a record and case number with the E.C.H.R.

Remembering of course, that the E.C.H.R. has no power to impose any of it's decisions, and any 'case' is against Portugal, and they owe the Portuguese money.

Besides the McCann's have always been rather economical with the truth.

I have just had a look at the E.C.H.R. site.

Nothing on there, but the Provisional and Grand Chamber Hearing dates (hardly relevant here). Interesting that even on the provisional dates one goes back to 2005.

It is certainly not showing a busy schedule of cases.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings/calendar&c=#n1353927184398_pointer

I still view the McCann's actions as merely a delaying factor.

One thing for sure, their arrogance and stupidity, knows no bounds.

Minor Statistics of pending cases 2018.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_pending_2018_BIL.pdf

Plus this.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_annual_2017_ENG.pdf

I think if the ECHR had agreed to hear the case we'd have had a breathless announcement of that in all the papers by now.

Texty wrote:I think if the ECHR had agreed to hear the case we'd have had a breathless announcement of that in all the papers by now.

Precisely Texty. They would be gloating.

Hi. The auditors   are not lawyers and are not responsible for the accuracy of the text provided by the directors. And they work with information provided by the company, for which the latter bears legal responsibility.

Under normal business practice any organization, limited by guarantee or otherwise,  that had had a costs order made against it in a Supreme Court with no further appeal would normally make a "provision" for it by entering it into the accounts as upcoming likely expenditure. Not doing so could give a misleading picture of the company's future cash flow.    

The directors of the fund have not seen fit to instruct  the auditors that this is an unchallengeable order under Portuguese law and therefore the auditors have made no such provision.

Instead the directors appear to have treated the financial consequences of the court order as possible but so far undetermined, presumably  because the ECHR could possibly accept the appeal and the McCanns could possibly win and the costs could possibly be re-assessed.

I don't think anyone could describe such a line of reasoning - the legal validity of which I am, like the auditors,  unclear  - as either transparent or wise and conservative financial judgement. But the only outsiders with an interest in the company's fortunes  are the long-forgotten and ignored donors who brought Michael Walker's "charity" into existence. They've never mattered.  

The payment to Duarte seems to be a separate financial settlement from the costs order.

A couple of other things of interest apart from those already mentioned:

- The new auditors are a local firm.

- There is a new unspecified "Provision for liabilities" of £15,254, which for some reason appears on the Reserves side of the Balance Sheet rather than amongst other assets and liabilities on the other side of the Balance Sheet.

AJS wrote:Hi. The auditors   are not lawyers and are not responsible for the accuracy of the text provided by the directors. And they work with information provided by the company, for which the latter bears legal responsibility.

Under normal business practice any organization, limited by guarantee or otherwise,  that had had a costs order made against it in a Supreme Court with no further appeal would normally make a "provision" for it by entering it into the accounts as upcoming likely expenditure. Not doing so could give a misleading picture of the company's future cash flow.    

The directors of the fund have not seen fit to instruct  the auditors that this is an unchallengeable order under Portuguese law and therefore the auditors have made no such provision.

Instead the directors appear to have treated the financial consequences of the court order as possible but so far undetermined, presumably  because the ECHR could possibly accept the appeal and the McCanns could possibly win and the costs could possibly be re-assessed.

I don't think anyone could describe such a line of reasoning - the legal validity of which I am, like the auditors,  unclear  - as either transparent or wise and conservative financial judgement. But the only outsiders with an interest in the company's fortunes  are the long-forgotten and ignored donors who brought Michael Walker's "charity" into existence. They've never mattered.  

The payment to Duarte seems to be a separate financial settlement from the costs order.

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.

They are expecting one or more bills for work done before year which add up to approx. that amount.

In a nutshell they have £ 582,090 in their investment portfolio of which £ 19,360 is cash.

In the bank they have £ 146,418 and they owe an estimated £15,254 plus a total of £ 288 to the McCanns.

£ 84,096 in royalties for Kate McCann's book was donated after the year end.

Ayfive wrote:

AJS wrote:Hi. The auditors   are not lawyers and are not responsible for the accuracy of the text provided by the directors. And they work with information provided by the company, for which the latter bears legal responsibility.

Under normal business practice any organization, limited by guarantee or otherwise,  that had had a costs order made against it in a Supreme Court with no further appeal would normally make a "provision" for it by entering it into the accounts as upcoming likely expenditure. Not doing so could give a misleading picture of the company's future cash flow.    

The directors of the fund have not seen fit to instruct  the auditors that this is an unchallengeable order under Portuguese law and therefore the auditors have made no such provision.

Instead the directors appear to have treated the financial consequences of the court order as possible but so far undetermined, presumably  because the ECHR could possibly accept the appeal and the McCanns could possibly win and the costs could possibly be re-assessed.

I don't think anyone could describe such a line of reasoning - the legal validity of which I am, like the auditors,  unclear  - as either transparent or wise and conservative financial judgement. But the only outsiders with an interest in the company's fortunes  are the long-forgotten and ignored donors who brought Michael Walker's "charity" into existence. They've never mattered.  

The payment to Duarte seems to be a separate financial settlement from the costs order.

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.

Their application to overturn the Supreme Court ruling was rejected on 21st March 2017, so I doubt if they had a figure on 31st as to what they would have to pay to the court. Duarte wasted no time getting her bill in before year end.

"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.

"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."

But the courts dismissed the claim that Amaral hampered the search ...

If they are not careful they will lose the softly softly approach of SY and attract the attention of HMRC.

Texty wrote:"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."

But the courts dismissed the claim that Amaral hampered the search ...

Now at some point, despite the prevarication, they will have to pay up, and if the fund is used, I believe tax will be due as well.

Do the Portuguese have any power of enforcement over here ?
How can they dare go to the E.C.H.R., if they haven't complied with the Supreme Court ?

Slartibartfast wrote:If they are not careful they will lose the softly softly approach of SY and attract the attention of HMRC.

Indeed; read all about it:
https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company/taking-money-out-of-a-limited-company


It would appear they can withdraw what they put in without attracting too much attention though.

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.