Re: OT - Has O2hoster ceased already?

["Nick Towers" <nickt@xxxxxxx>]

If the directors are syphoning money off to avoid paying creditors=20
that's actually illegal, so if they owe money it's worth chasing.=20
Otherwise I believe a Director's liability is limited to the share=20
capital which could be as little as =A350. Thats my understanding. As I=20
said they don't actually owe me money (well no more than a few quid) -
my issue is the possible loss of business from lost emails, & the=20
hassle of reconstructing my web pages. But I doubt if I can do a=20
small claims for that.

Nick


--- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, Tony Butler <lists@a...> wrote:
> Quoting Nick Towers <nickt@t...>:
>=20
> > For me its hassle not money (but hassle =3D time =3D money), I
just=20
want=20
> > the site back up for a day or two so I can get the files &
mail I=20
>=20
> I know what you mean (and indeed 4 me is an incentive NOT to=20
pursue - a lot of=20
> hassle! But then, there is the _principal...) but I can't see him=20
being=20
> that 'nice' given that he took the site down with no notice,=20
leaving support=20
> only for a day, and then killing that too...
>=20
> > need. But I will write. Trouble is, as a Ltd co, if it has no=20
assets=20
> > (which I suspect will be the case), it's not going to pay=20
up/refund=20
> > unless there were personal guarantees which is v unlikely.=20
>=20
> Are you sure you're not confusing the ltd liability of the=20
shareholders with=20
> the liabilities of the directors?  Directors tend to get 'special'=20
treatment=20
> because they are responsible for the company - to stop things like=20
setting up,=20
> taking all your money, and then running - so you might find that=20
Ozan is more=20
> liable than you think.
> Plus, he said they are shutting down because of O2 mobile moaning=20
about the=20
> name - not because they are bankrupt.....
>=20
> T.