DJM, the end.

[Ravenser]

I think it is important for those who have lost money through DJM crowd-funding lodge a claim with the liquidators, even if it's "only £30" . 

 

Letting tens of thousands of pounds - perhaps even several hundred thousand - of crowd-funding  evaporate unrecorded out of (misplaced) sympathy with Dave Jones will not help the hobby or anyone else .  It would be helpful to know what did happen to the crowd-funding, how fully subscribed these projects actually were, and whether any of the money is left  - and if everyone is too shy to tell the liquidators about their losses , it will simply be airbrushed out of history as not having happened, to save the liquidators work...

[The Stationmaster]

45 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I agree that someone needs to approach the liquidators. Ideally, it should be a creditor but anyone with detailed knowledge will probably be welcome.

 

Sadly, that does not match my experience of insolvency administrators. Look up "pre-pack administrations".

 

Firstly, if Dave Jones' records were chaotic (as I suspect they were), they won't have much idea of how to proceed.

 

Secondly, if they realise that there are people with an interest in these assets, they will find it more difficult to undersell them and leave creditors in the lurch.

Yes your final point is in my view a very important reason why the crowdfunders need to make sure they make their presence know to the liquidator.  While they are presumably unsecured creditors and right at the end of any queue making their presence known might be useful for them if near worthless 'assets' such as CADs without .STL files come under consideration.

[njee20]

8 minutes ago, Coach bogie said:

The taxman usually gets paid first and in full, then the liquidator, and if there is anything left, the creditors. A good friend is an insolvency practitioner. he says often there is little to liquidate. In one company the only assets was a kettle and some mugs. Furniture, pictures on the walls, equipment, even the plants were all leased and went back to the lease holders. Even the toilet rolls were provided by the landlord. As a limited company not even the taxman got paid on that one.

 

Mike Wiltshire

This has been done at least 5 times in this thread alone!

 

HMRC are now an unsecured creditor.

 

The liquidators will get paid first, then secured creditors, then unsecured, then shareholders.

[Roy Langridge]

7 minutes ago, Coach bogie said:

The taxman usually gets paid first and in full, then the liquidator, and if there is anything left, the creditors. A good friend is an insolvency practitioner. he says often there is little to liquidate. In one company the only assets was a kettle and some mugs. Furniture, pictures on the walls, equipment, even the plants were all leased and went back to the lease holders. Even the toilet rolls were provided by the landlord. As a limited company not even the taxman got paid on that one.

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

As I understand it,  ot at the moment. HMRC was removed as a preferred creditor some time ago. As of April 2020 they return as a secondary preferred creditor, a change in the budget last year. 

 

Roy

[Phil Parker]

4 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Yes your final point is in my view a very important reason why the crowdfunders need to make sure they make their presence know to the liquidator.  While they are presumably unsecured creditors and right at the end of any queue making their presence known might be useful for them if near worthless 'assets' such as CADs without .STL files come under consideration

 

I'm trying to get some information out of the liquidators at the moment. The person handling it isn't in the office today but I'm promised a call-back tomorrow. If I don't hear anything, I'll give them another ring. Hopefully, I can find out the information once and post it on here for everyone to use.

[jjb1970]

I think if I was a crowd funder my hope would be less about recovering money (unless I was one of those who had signed on for the APT and/or multiple models in which case a reasonable sum could be at stake) but rather to get some accountability for what had happened to my money. Clearly a significant sum was paid into DJM's various crowd funded projects, it appears that Chinese factories consider themselves to be creditors for unpaid work and very little was ever delivered by the company. Now it may be that this is all quite reasonable and it was all swallowed up as a result of reasonable costs incurred by DJM, but either way I'd like to know where it all went and to have some comfort that it had been spent responsibly in pursuit of the models I had agreed to fund if it was my money in question.

[Ravenser]

There might be more money in the business than we think. DJM had 7 crowd-funded projects in play. He could have been "stranded" on some of them - money in hand , but not enough to tool up , and too little to cancel and pay back. And this crowd-funding might have been "off-balance sheet" - it is not clear if it was included in the "short-form accounts"  . Given the Paypal saga , some of it might have been received outside the DJM company bank account. That all needs to be documented by the liquidators - who otherwise might not suspect the existence of these payments

[philiprporter]

In case this is helpful, I spoke to the liquidators last week. The response I received is that they are obliged to notify all creditors of the liquidation within 28 days and relevant correspondence will sent out within that time period. How 'creditors' are being defined I don't know, but this email from them was in response to me emailing them to state that I had paid a deposit for the APT which I notified them of when the liquidation was confirmed. Hope this helps. 

[Coach bogie]

44 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

As I understand it,  ot at the moment. HMRC was removed as a preferred creditor some time ago. As of April 2020 they return as a secondary preferred creditor, a change in the budget last year. 

 

Roy

 

45 minutes ago, njee20 said:

This has been done at least 5 times in this thread alone!

 

HMRC are now an unsecured creditor.

 

The liquidators will get paid first, then secured creditors, then unsecured, then shareholders.

  I stand corrected

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Roy Langridge]

1 hour ago, njee20 said:

This has been done at least 5 times in this thread alone!

 

HMRC are now an unsecured creditor.

 

The liquidators will get paid first, then secured creditors, then unsecured, then shareholders.

 

Whilst that is true today njee20, I don't know what would happen if it takes until April next year to fully resolve. If there are issues with ownership and list of creditors, as has been suggested, how long can this process last?

 

On a note about the liquidator getting paid, I would point this out:

Quote

In a liquidation (whether voluntary or compulsory) the creditors have the right to appoint a committee called the liquidation committee, with a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 members, to monitor the conduct of the liquidation and approve the Liquidator’s fees. The committee is usually established at the creditors’ meeting which appoints the Liquidator, but in cases where a liquidation follows immediately on an administration any committee established for the purposes of the administration will continue in being as the liquidation committee.

The Liquidator must call the first meeting of the committee within 6 weeks of its establishment (or his appointment if that is later), and subsequent meetings must be held either at specified dates agreed by the committee, or when requested by a member of the committee, or when the Liquidator decides he needs to hold one. The Liquidator is required to report to the committee at least every 6 months on the progress of the liquidation, unless the committee directs otherwise. This provides an opportunity for the committee to monitor and discuss the progress of the insolvency and the level of the Liquidator’s fees.

 

So, do we who paid crowdfunding deposits want to try and have a representative on said committee?

 

Roy

Edited June 10, 2019 by Roy Langridge

[BR Blue]

Is not clear at all where the money went. The Chinese factories have apparently not been paid and yet money was paid by crowd funders.

 

I would like to see more detailed accounts but doubt they exist. I would be particularly interested in any mention of directors remuneration.

[scottystitch]

44 minutes ago, philiprporter said:

In case this is helpful, I spoke to the liquidators last week. The response I received is that they are obliged to notify all creditors of the liquidation within 28 days and relevant correspondence will sent out within that time period. How 'creditors' are being defined I don't know, but this email from them was in response to me emailing them to state that I had paid a deposit for the APT which I notified them of when the liquidation was confirmed. Hope this helps. 

That is helpful, thanks for clarifying.

 

The issue may be where someone has paid a deposit, but there is no record of it at that end. There have been a few tales of this over time......

 

Best

 

Scott

[newbryford]

5 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

 how long can this process last?

 

Roy

 

Hopefully quicker that the delivery of his promised models...……...

 

[PMP]

14 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

 

So, do we who paid crowdfunding deposits want to try and have a representative on said committee?

 

Roy

 

If a committee is formed, that sounds a good suggestion subject to the liquidators agreement, and obviously could help all parties. It might be worth dropping an email or phone call to them with that suggestion, best coming from a stakeholder I’d suggest. One issue would be knowing who is being represented. Perhaps a separate thread for crowdfunders to ‘register’ on as having a stake. No details as to how much etc, purely a register, that would help identify the numbers of people affected. Those stakeholders could then decide whom should represent them without any input from external observers. That won’t cover everyone who’s made a payment, but might give a form of co-ordinated group, rather than tens of individuals all trying to find similar information.

[Roy Langridge]

3 minutes ago, PMP said:

 

If a committee is formed, that sounds a good suggestion subject to the liquidators agreement, and obviously could help all parties. It might be worth dropping an email or phone call to them with that suggestion, best coming from a stakeholder I’d suggest. One issue would be knowing who is being represented. Perhaps a separate thread for crowdfunders to ‘register’ on as having a stake. No details as to how much etc, purely a register, that would help identify the numbers of people affected. Those stakeholders could then decide whom should represent them without any input from external observers. That won’t cover everyone who’s made a payment, but might give a form of co-ordinated group, rather than tens of individuals all trying to find similar information.

 

Phil - I am not wishing to impose, but if you are speaking with the liquidators tomorrow, would you be able to broach the subject of a representative for the crowdfunders?

 

It would be very much appreciated if you could.

 

Roy

[Phil Parker]

9 minutes ago, PMP said:

 

If a committee is formed, that sounds a good suggestion subject to the liquidators agreement, and obviously could help all parties. It might be worth dropping an email or phone call to them with that suggestion, best coming from a stakeholder I’d suggest. One issue would be knowing who is being represented. Perhaps a separate thread for crowdfunders to ‘register’ on as having a stake. No details as to how much etc, purely a register, that would help identify the numbers of people affected. Those stakeholders could then decide whom should represent them without any input from external observers. That won’t cover everyone who’s made a payment, but might give a form of co-ordinated group, rather than tens of individuals all trying to find similar information.

 

For data protection reasons, any register should be held by the liquidators and NOT on an RMweb thread. 

 

A single representative sounds like a good idea, but I get the feeling everyone wants to be on the committee so perhaps it's not workable. 

 

This all needs to be in the hands of the official liquidators and not a group on a forum. That's why I've been trying to sort out a contact.

[Western Dave]

Hi All

 

I have been reading this thread on and off now since it first started and as someone with first hand business experience of company liquidations (not mine but customers and suppliers) I would just like to make a few observations to you and maybe a few pointers as there is a lot of he said she said/misinformation flying around etc... 

I stopped posting some time ago but I felt must post here to try and help you a little.

 

1. Please be prepared for the liquidation process to take a VERY long time. I have known big/small companies go under with small.large sums owed and it can take years and will certainly NOT take less than a year if everything is clean and simple.

 

2. A creditors meeting has to be called and anybody owed money or with a "vested" interest can attend and listed to the liquidators and ask questions. I would suggest you nominate a spokesman or jointly appoint a solicitor. at the meeting a director of the company will be present and may make a statement and may take questions ( in this companies case only 1 director was appointed at the time of the liquidators being appointed.

 

3. Expect to be "blagged" off at the meeting as it will only be the start of the process and the liquidator will purely outline the "known" situation at the time (the full story will always take a long time to discover) and they will also outline the process ahead.

 

4. Be prepared to be told that the liquidators will be paying a senior member of staff of the liquidated company to assist them (yes I know that's not going down well but it will happen. sadly the liquidator needs help and inside knowledge to start the recovery process)

 

5. Anybody who is owed money or has made a payment by whatever process should and must make themselves known to the liquidator so that can get a clear picture.

 

6. Over time going forward you will get reports/statements from the liquidators updating you of their findings and advising what monies are available (if any of their fees and legal costs) for distribution.

 

7. Remember that if this process if followed correctly and any company director is found to have been knowingly traded the company while insolvent or not discharged their duties as an officer of the company legally then you have a seperate case against the individual(s) even if it was a Limited company.

 

8. Whilst all this is wrong and at best frustrating hindsight is a wonderful thing and history is exactly that history but the future is going forward which is what everyone must now do.

 

It is easy for me to say all the above because I am not involved in this in anyway but I did feel the need to try and shed a little light (in a dark place) on the matter.

 

Now I have that all off my chest I will retire again from RMWEB and wish you all well, patience and good luck

[MarkSG]

One thing I haven't seen answered anywhere in this topic (it may well have been and I've missed it, given the number of replies, in which case I apologise for needlessly adding to the number of them), but do DJM's terms and conditions for crowdfunding include any reference to a refund being available if the model is not delivered?

 

If there is provision for a refund in case of non-delivery, then crowdfunders are creditors. But they are unsecured creditors, and will take their turn after all the secured and preferred creditors have been paid. Which means that if they get anything at all (which is probably unlikely), they will only get a proportion of what they paid over. Because if there was enough money in the kitty to refund the crowdfunders in full, then the company wouldn't be insolvent and hence wouldn't be in liquidation.

On the other hand, If the answer to that is a clear "no", then crowdfunders aren't creditors, they are investors, and their money is (sadly) now irretrievably lost.

 

So a lot depends on what the Ts&Cs say. And, if they are in any way ambiguous, how the administrators interpret them. But, either way, there is absolutely no way that crowdfunders are going to get a full refund, and it isn't helping anyone to hold out hopes that they might.

[PMP]

Just now, Phil Parker said:

 

For data protection reasons, any register should be held by the liquidators and NOT on an RMweb thread. 

 

Makes sense.  The ‘internet’ would be a logical/fast place to start that register. A possible option would be a Facebook group, or something like a Wordpress blog that can be made ‘members only’.Data protection issues would still apply, and clearly people would need to trust the FB group admin, and the other members..

[philiprporter]

3 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

One thing I haven't seen answered anywhere in this topic (it may well have been and I've missed it, given the number of replies, in which case I apologise for needlessly adding to the number of them), but do DJM's terms and conditions for crowdfunding include any reference to a refund being available if the model is not delivered?

 

If there is provision for a refund in case of non-delivery, then crowdfunders are creditors. But they are unsecured creditors, and will take their turn after all the secured and preferred creditors have been paid. Which means that if they get anything at all (which is probably unlikely), they will only get a proportion of what they paid over. Because if there was enough money in the kitty to refund the crowdfunders in full, then the company wouldn't be insolvent and hence wouldn't be in liquidation.

On the other hand, If the answer to that is a clear "no", then crowdfunders aren't creditors, they are investors, and their money is (sadly) now irretrievably lost.

 

So a lot depends on what the Ts&Cs say. And, if they are in any way ambiguous, how the administrators interpret them. But, either way, there is absolutely no way that crowdfunders are going to get a full refund, and it isn't helping anyone to hold out hopes that they might.

I'm not sure there are any Ts&Cs - certainly never seen any for the APT (more fool me) aside from the statement that has been posted here already regarding people who are paying the 25% deposit to carefully consider their investment before re-ordering (this applies to those who had an order number from the DToS website, hence use of the term 're-ordering' I presume). The Ts&Cs on the DJ Models website are still viewable, but only cover use of information and cookies and that has been the case for as long as I can remember

[jjb1970]

There were T&C's for the APT at least, poorly written and vague T&C's but T&C's nevertheless. The initial set were re-drafted following observations that they were legally non-valid (if I remember correctly Andy Y may have been one of the ones that pointed that out). Certainly these things are sold as being "investments" although under UK consumer law I believe a reward crowd fund scheme is considered a purchase, and in fairness to DJM he did state that these "investments" entailed some risk.

[modelpara]

15 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The IP is of little use or value without the .STL  file and it's probably worthless in any event if somebody else owns any existing tooling or the .STL file.   As I suggested in respect of the 'King' what could be a realistic approach is for the crowdfunders to get together and approach the liquidators to obtain what exists of complete CADs and acertain who has possession of the .STL  file.  The only place you are likely to get any sort of answer is from the liquidators.

 

IF anyone was to band together to offer to buy the IP and the .STL file for the APT I would be willing to invest in that project with a view to getting them made.

That said I have also been encouraging DToS to approach another manufacturer and hopefully restart the project with them.

 

[JSpencer]

6 minutes ago, modelpara said:

 

IF anyone was to band together to offer to buy the IP and the .STL file for the APT I would be willing to invest in that project with a view to getting them made.

That said I have also been encouraging DToS to approach another manufacturer and hopefully restart the project with them.

 

 

Might be wise to see if another manufacturer prefers to pick the pieces up or simply just start from scratch. The fact that someone else did some work does not instantly mean we can move to the next steps especially a complex project like this. It could interest me but it would require putting into place infrastruture and organisation first which is not cheap nor quick. 

[Ravenser]

21 minutes ago, modelpara said:

 

IF anyone was to band together to offer to buy the IP and the .STL file for the APT I would be willing to invest in that project with a view to getting them made.

That said I have also been encouraging DToS to approach another manufacturer and hopefully restart the project with them.

 

 

Bear in mind that an APT in OO might be a half million pound project....

[GordonC]

16 minutes ago, modelpara said:

 

IF anyone was to band together to offer to buy the IP and the .STL file for the APT I would be willing to invest in that project with a view to getting them made.

That said I have also been encouraging DToS to approach another manufacturer and hopefully restart the project with them.

 

 

I think the 14 car APT project would be pretty difficult to pick up the IP and .STL file and do anything meaningful with for anyone other than an experienced manufacturer and I dont think much could be done to simplify what is needed.