Jump to content

pheaton

DJM - Statement of Affairs released

AY Mod

Can you please keep posts on topic. Off-topic content is being removed.

Message added by AY Mod

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Well the statement of affairs is out and not pretty, only £4801 available to creditors..... Which includes hattons and a loan company.... And that's before the administrators are paid. 

 

Id say the fact he had a 30k loan on top of a 50k from dave jones input indicates theres been a problem for a very long time.......especially since most of the buisness should have been sustained on crowd funding input and sales from the successfully produced models..... 

Edited by pheaton
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the "ringfenced" crowdfunders' money?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't ringfence money, crowdfunders are no different to any other creditor. You can place the crowdfunders money in a separate account from the main buisness but its still pooled up when the buisness goes under... And as they are nit individually listed as a creditor unless you lodge a claim you wont get anything. Not tgat theres anything to claim from.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a lot more realistic than the micro accounts seen to date.

 

The statement shows £53,097 as trade and expense creditors. This is Hattons plus Funding Circle Ltd.  I can't find a figure anywhere that would include money/models owed to crowdfunders.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Colin_McLeod said:

I can't find a figure anywhere that would include money/models owed to crowdfunders.

 

Because they are investors not creditors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

But are they?  They paid one instalment of four for a specific model. If treated as investors then why is there no such description in the statement of affairs.

 

 

There is a page for "consumer creditors" which is where I would have expected "day to day" creditors to be. People like utilities, advertisers, prepayment for models, and the plethora of small debts that any business would have.

 

 

Is the statement of affairs indeed an accurate portrayal of the business?

Edited by Colin_McLeod
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Its a legally binding document if he were lying it would be an offence, there maybe further statements as time progresses but the statement of affairs portrays what he hasnt had to declare on his micro entity accounts. 

 

So yes its accurate. 

 

What im not sure of as its liquidation not administration, is if there would be an administrators proposals document which woukd explain the exact reason the business failed. 

Edited by pheaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Widnes Model Centre said:

 

As stated much earlier I believe this had had a big effect on the industry as a whole. Does anybody honestly think that Hattons can throw away nearly £20,000? Feel for them and everyone else who have lost money.

2

 

I am not sure if DJM has a big impact on the industry as a whole. Some money was lost into his crowdfunding schemes, but it seems to be a few hundred people max per project. I doubt that it took many sales away from model shops. Hornby's sales are down by £5 Million yet I don't think it was because the money was tied up in DJM crowdfunding projects. Those seem rather negliable.

It will have an impact on others trying to get crowdfunding underway though.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,

 

The statement of affairs makes an interesting read for sure.

 

So it would seem Mr Jones is listed officially as a creditor to the amount of £50,000, whilst the crowdfunding ‘crediting’ is not listed at all.

 

That should ensure that should there be any money left at the end of this mess (and I’m not suggesting there will be) he would get a payout whilst the crowdfunders loose everything.

 

Nice.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

 

I am not sure if DJM has a big impact on the industry as a whole. Some money was lost into his crowdfunding schemes, but it seems to be a few hundred people max per project. I doubt that it took many sales away from model shops. Hornby's sales are down by £5 Million yet I don't think it was because the money was tied up in DJM crowdfunding projects. Those seem rather negilable.

It will have an impact on others trying to get crowdfunding underway though.

 

If you speak to anyone in the industry, they don't agree.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Widnes Model Centre said:

Does anybody honestly think that Hattons can throw away nearly £20,000? Feel for them and everyone else who have lost money.

I do. But I guess that Hattons would at least have a contract and might at least take a tax write-off.

Edited by truffy
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JSpencer said:

 

I am not sure if DJM has a big impact on the industry as a whole. Some money was lost into his crowdfunding schemes, but it seems to be a few hundred people max per project. I doubt that it took many sales away from model shops. Hornby's sales are down by £5 yet I don't think it was because the money was tied up in DJM crowdfunding projects. Those seem rather negilable.

It will have an impact on others trying to get crowdfunding underway though.

Dont think hattons will agree... Or funding circle, they have lost out, as a Ltd company daves exposure is minimal all he has to do is find a job! 

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, pheaton said:

You can't ringfence money, crowdfunders are no different to any other creditor. You can place the crowdfunders money in a separate account from the main buisness but its still pooled up when the buisness goes under... And as they are nit individually listed as a creditor unless you lodge a claim you wont get anything. Not tgat theres anything to claim from.... 

Nah, he meant before this all went wrong; Dave always maintained that monies raised through crowdfunding were always ringfenced, rather than being used to fund parallel projects. Given there are several projects for which significant funds have been raised, but outlay has been minimal (92s, King, APT etc) there should be a healthy pot of money. Clearly this has been pissed away on other things whilst Dave told everyone tooling was imminent for years, literally. 

 

Those figures are a disaster, that’s been on the cards for a long time and he knew it. 

 

Funding Circle is peer-to-peer lending too, so people who invested in Dave via FC lose out there. 

  • Agree 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Are crowd funders actually creditors....?

 

Is this a plausible scenario ?

 

if he has been paid to provide a service and he has provided it.. then the transaction is closed and no credit is due.

 

He was clear the first stage funding was for the CAD, and he's provided it, in several instances he had said the money had been spent.

 

if he didn't collect the 2nd stage then is he up to date ?

 

i know those paying out may disagree, but could he go this route ?

 

 

Ive found that statements of affairs are not always true, my ex employer claimed against a failed partner, their debt owed never appeared in any of the iterations of the statements of affairs... that said it was irrelevant as theres was nowt left.

Edited by adb968008
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The statement of affairs makes interesting, if depressing, reading, and I'm really sorry for the unsecured creditors.  The chief points seem to be:   

 

- The business owner funded principally through debt rather than equity.  His lost equity stake is £101.  His director's loan is £50K, making him owed nearly as much as everyone else.  Everyone else here appears to be Hattons and the Funding Circle.

 

- There are no preferential or secured creditors

 

- £103K of debt and less than £5K of assets. 

 

- The tooling and the "laser scans/plans" are worthless/unrealisable 

 

It leaves me with 3 questions:

 

-  Does the "laser scans/plans" include the infamous protected CADs?  Were these registered to the company or was this the personal IP of Dave Jones?

 

- Was the crowdfunding undertaken via the Funding Circle?  I would have thought not, as I had understood the FC to be a source of private business loans, as opposed to banks who have more or less given up making money available to any small business who might actually need a loan.  This quote from the Funding Circle website prompted some hollow laughter: "Rigorous credit assessment so you lend to creditworthy businesses and loans perform in line with our expectations".  Yeah, right.

 

- I don't know what the £15K deposit with supplier might be or why it's "uncertain". Perhaps money on deposit in China, or is this crowd-funder deposits?

 

Whatever the reasons for this result, the rights and wrongs etc, surely no one in this industry will ever do business with the former proprietor of this company again. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, bigP said:

Well,

 

The statement of affairs makes an interesting read for sure.

 

So it would seem Mr Jones is listed officially as a creditor to the amount of £50,000, whilst the crowdfunding ‘crediting’ is not listed at all.

 

That should ensure that should there be any money left at the end of this mess (and I’m not suggesting there will be) he would get a payout whilst the crowdfunders loose everything.

 

Nice.

On the statement of affairs, ignoring any liquidators costs, the creditors will get 4.6p in the pound. So DJ would get about £230.00. Not exactly life changing is it especially as he is owed £50k by his company? Going on what has been said by him in the past I suspect he borrowed that £50k by way of a second mortgage on his house so he will have to continue to repay that. He is far deeper in to this than many folk seem to think. And I'm pretty sure the liquidators costs will eliminate the realisations.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who has paid money either through goods or services, or investments such as down payments or a loan is a creditor provided they have sufficient evidence which in the case of crowdfunders is a receipt of payment. That proof has not been supplied to the liquidator which isnt unusual, so as per the liquidators in crowdfunders are requested to lodge claims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can sixty eight grands worth of tooling be worthless?  Surely that or at least some of it can be sold on for reuse or have the Chinese factories already scrapped them?

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

-  Does the "laser scans/plans" include the infamous protected CADs?  Were these registered to the company or was this the personal IP of Dave Jones?

 

- I don't know what the £15K deposit with supplier might be or why it's "uncertain". Perhaps money on deposit in China, or is this crowd-funder deposits?

Seems perhaps odd that the scans/plans are seen as holding no value - as they must I assume include items already produced. So could have a resale - if small - value, wonder if they would be open to any offers being made.  As anything achieved above £0 is an improvement and this is what they will be seeking to achieve.

 

The £15K deposit is "uncertain" as they are not 100% confident of recovering any amount - so worse case option.

 

Shame, but this is not and may well not be the last Business to go to the wall.  Regardless of the feelings towards Dave he at least did try, and convinced people like the Funding Circle that it was a viable opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who was this Michelle Mansley? I haven’t seen her name mentioned on here before, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Hilux5972 said:

Who was this Michelle Mansley? I haven’t seen her name mentioned on here before, 

she used to be a director at DJM (15.05.2017-20.03.2018)

Edited by truffy
link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His partner. Best to leave her out of it?

  • Agree 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John M Upton said:

How can sixty eight grands worth of tooling be worthless?  

 

From communications with China at very least it may be that ownership is disputed (legal title to such remains the property of xyz until settlement is made in full etc - a standard commercial term on invoices). Having seen communications offering production from such tooling to other parties this would seem to be the case - historical comments indicate that tooling costs were amortised over production runs by the factory and ownership may never have been transferable.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.