Discussion in 'UK politics, current affairs and news' started by gawkrodger, Jan 13, 2018.
Probably also says in the contract that the provider is obliged to a) do the work and b) exist.
My guess is that it will come down to the Service Level Agreement the council signed with Carillion. I don't think that the contract is necessarily automatically void because Carillion went tits-up, but if Carillion fail to honour their obligations under the SLA, there would be scope for the client to terminate the contract - but even there, they probably have to go through some kind of contract failure process, so it's probably not even a question of waiting until the Carillion-paid staff fail to turn up for work, but having to endure that happening and then commencing whatever the process agreed in the contract for failure to supply was. Which is going to leave a lot of their customers having to somehow prop up the service Carillion is no longer supplying, while at the same time initiating some probably fairly drawn-out process of cancelling the contract due to their failure. I might be being unduly cynical here, and maybe the receivers will be a bit more understanding, but I have a feeling it probably isn't actually possible to be too cynical about situations like this...
This is part of the job of the receivers - they are going to be absolutely on the case for any clients who might breach the terms of the contract, and thereby leave themselves open for a claim from Carillion (in receivership) for breach of contract. The receivers' job is to make the most of the remaining assets (including assets-in-kind like ongoing contracts), and it's probably more in their interests than it might have been in Carillion's to pursue any possibility of screwing as much money out of clients as possible, particularly in view of the bareness of the cupboard, as things stand. If that means screwing cancellation fees, so be it - it's all money back in the pot, and they'll justify it by pointing out that they're "just trying to secure best value for the creditors".
Yes this. Carillion can't fulfill its end of the contract as it can't pay workers to operate whatever the deliverables are.
You'd assume that is automatic default, this isn't a case of public bodies wanting to walk away because they are pissed off and found a new supplier who was cheaper or better or whatever - which is what early termination clauses are meant to guard against - carillion can't actually function.
Pension funds should be very risk averse, they should have got out when it became clear it was the most shorted stock on the LSE. I would still imagine most did (hence the protracted 25% fall in share price before the profit warning last summer) and even those that didn't would still be well diversified enough to make up for it elsewhere.
I’m not sure you’ve ever met a concentration camp survivor, let alone talked to them about their experiences.
I very much doubt it given the pile of horseshit you’ve just emitted.
To compare ANYTHING Carillion the company has done (let alone their ordinary employees) to wholesale genocidal slaughter is just so crass, stupid and moronic I can only assume you’ve had your brain removed for the day.
If you ever do reclaim it I would go away and have a very long, hard think about what you’ve posted.
In the meantime fuck you and Godwins law.
For the day?
I wasn’t comparing it in scale of malevolence just in culture of accepted evil.
Capita do however have blood on their hands. Not as much blood as the nazis but blood nevertheless.
Numerous suicides due to their heartless administration for profit of various types of benefit claim etc.
Is this list correct?
Richard Tapp is a solicitor and the longstanding Secretary of Carillion plc, but he has never been a director if it. I am not sure that Janet Dawson has ever been a director of Carillion plc either.
What does this list represent? Senior executives within the Carillion Group of companies past and present? Or what?
It is there for information if anyone wants it.
If the Company has gone into liquidation, then the directors are no longer directors, so there isn't anything particularly problematic with this. I haven't got access at home but can have a look at Companies House tomorrow.
Company secretary, at this level is a functionary appointment, it doesn't mean they are complicit in anything.
Fair enough sorry I assumed your links meant you disagreed with me. I blame 15 years of U75
Apologies if I have missed anything.
Your posts claimed that Carillion "stole" £600m from its pension funds and that it was not making payments into its various pension schemes.
I cannot see where the article to which you have kindly drawn attention supports either of these two claims. It draws attention to the fact there is a pension deficit, which sadly, is commonplace in the case of large listed companies.
Obviously, there are people here with greater expertise on this than I have, but at the moment, I cannot see the evidence is for what you claim. Also, I cannot see where the claims you make have yet been supported by the actual pension scheme trustees, or the employees, union representatives and so on.
I have no great expertise in these things either, and pension fund deficits are not limited to Carillion. But they paid out a big dividend last year, and directors bonuses, whilst the pension fund was in deficit and that is a pile of crap, whatever the legalities.
If any of the directors had been bankrupt, they would not have able to serve as directors by law.
As for the current situation, my understanding that it is Carillion plc which is insolvent, not any individual director of it.
Nothing currently prevents any of them from holding directorships in the future as far as I am aware, bar potential reputational damage to any company on whose board they might wish to serve, but neither is there any reason why any of them might not be disqualified from being a director in the future, should the evidence show that that is appropriate.
Perfectly correct ... and commonplace.
However, this seems to me to be different from claiming that Carillion "stole" £600m from its pension funds and that it was not making payments into its various pension schemes. To date, I am not clear what evidence these claims are based on.
It's about reality, rather than legality. They could have dealt with their responsibilities to their pension fund. They chose not to. They paid dividends and bonuses instead. That is not technically theft, I agree. I am sure the directors who have lined their own pockets will have had good legal advice and will get away with it. But it is still a pile of shit and we will still line then up against the wall and shoot them come the revolution. Comrade.
So far as board conduct in the latter stages of this affair is concerned, it will be interesting to see the outcome of this:
HS2 contractor Carillion investigated by Financial Conduct Authority
Theres a degree of hypocrisy at play with Corbyn making capital out of this, when the only Government in UK that Labour controls, Welsh Assembly Government, was still handing out contracts to Carillion!
Corbyn doesn't control Carwyn Jones, even though it would be better for Carwyn Jones if he did.
It is rich blaming Corbyn for such a complete and total failure of privatisation, if not of capitalism itself.
Blame Blair and Brown, but not Corbyn.
This thread has been going for nine pages, so perhaps its time for a little bit of levity:
All of that would only be true if Carillion ONLY carried out works in pubic sector and undertook no privately funded works! They public works may have been making vast profits and subsidising other loss making parts of the company!
Carillion plc's last full year results and statutory accoounts show that in relation to the 2016 financial year, that it paid:
pension deficit contributions of £46.6m; and
total directors' remuneration of £2,715,000.
It also proposed that its full-year dividend be increased by 1% to a total of £78.9m (which was subsequently approved by its shareholders).
Given the scale of what has now happened, these sums may be relatively insignificant, but it may give some indication of the mentality of those who served on the board.
It would be good to hear why those in charge of a company in such a state considered it appropriate to allow nearly £79m flow out of the business in dividends:
"The Group is well positioned to continue funding the dividend, which continues to be well covered by cash generated by the business." (2016 Annual Report, page 44)
Within a year of that statement, it was bankrupt.
Source: Bonuses for Carillion bosses are blocked
Carillion must now also face justice for blacklisting trade unionists
Dave Smith 17 January 2018
Blacklist in the construction industry....thread
'Hypocrite' Theresa May trousered £50k from firm that bet on Carillion's failure
Put yourself in the position of an employee who suddenly finds herself unemployed with no redundancy money, reading the paper and seeing that the pension fund she has every right to expect will be properly handled is missing a vast sum of money. Despite the huge salaries drawn by those ultimately responsible for ensuring that basic stuff like pensions are properly handled, she finds that there is nobody who can be held accountable for the fuck up.
Do you not think thay would feel a bit like being stolen from? Except you can't report it to the police because rich folk did it so it wasn't a crime.
Out of curiosity, what is your percentage in sticking up for these fucking jokers?
The comedy value is further enhanced via comedy timing - via a National Audit Office report about how shit PFIs are.
PFI deals 'costing taxpayers billions'
Separate names with a comma.