Phil Spenser should pay back the people he owes after going bankrupt and selling his london home at a huge profit to buy a mansion

[hardwrkwales]

DM are talking about the millions he's made on london property selling his main home (anybody has made a lot buying ten years ago!) And showed pics of the new mansion.

However his company and himself went bankrupt a few years ago owing I think over 600k and owes money to employees and tax payer bailed out banks!

I fail to see this money as made by hard work like all the comments in the fail suggest! All saying well done, he deserves it and he's earnt it. People on nmw work hard too!

Yadnbu

Utterly ridiculous. Bankruptcy is final not a retrospective process which allows you to pay your creditors later if your circumstances change.

Are you allowed to keep your house if you go bankrupt?

My understanding is that his company folded, not a personal bankruptcy. They are two different things

Isn't the point of bankruptcy that it draws a line under everything? Surely it would be totally pointless if it was a lifelong sentence to chase you with if your circumstances changed.

Well I'm sure whatever he's done is all legal, etc.

I do hate it when people play the game like this. Martin Freeman's wife is another one. Lives the life of a millionaire but declared herself bankrupt last year so she didn't have to pay what she owed. All the money and the house is in his name......how convenient. I know that obviously he will be the wealthier one, but she has worked, they've been together ages and have kids together. Very unusual the house isn't in her name as well.

Did Phil personally go bankrupt or was it his business?

Structure your affairs in the 'right' way and you can escape your moral responsibilities.

Ivegoogled. It was his business which went bust in 2009, he wasn't made bankrupt.

I feel some sympathy for him. He says he couldn't get investment at the height of the recession......as happened to many businesses. He says he paid staff out his personal savings for some time trying to keep things going.

Surely he couldnt have been made bankrupt if he had an asset worth millions like the house?

It was his business that went bankrupt, not him. That's the whole point of having a Limited Company, that it offers the individual protection if the business doesn't work out.

And remember that whilst you vent at the upper earning echelon that the same laws are essential for small business owners who also go to the wall. Having a limited company enables them to keep a roof over their heads, their kids in a home.

Or are they too the spawn of Satan?

The only way to ensure that the rich cannot rise Phoenix like and wealthy from the ashes of their lifestyles is to ensure that every small business, independent service provider, shopkeeper, Avon lady, crafter, and their families, must be permanently drowned by recessions too.

Martin freeman is not married and keeps his money separate from his partner. She is shafted by him in my opinion, he is really wealthy

Martin Freeman's wife paid it off in the end.

I've watched a business go bankrupt, the people are human. The senior staff agreed not to be paid at Christmas, but the business didn't make it, so they probably get paid at all.

I'm sure he didn't let his business go under for fun; it was probably the worst time of his life.

Do you think his family should lose everything else too?

Lots of hard-working people, who have provided employment for others for many years, have bad luck - don't agree with punishing them for it forever.

Very unfair to bring Martin Freeman's partner into this, she has paid all her creditors.

YABU

I would agree with you partly. I hate bankruptcy, people can spend what they like and simply file for it and never have to pay the money back. It's very wrong.

Agreed re Marin Freeman's partner. I cannot fathom why he didn't pay off this debt for her, given how very rich he is. I too think she is being shafted in that relationship. Also she paid her debts.

I think there is a moral obligation to pay back employees if your luck improves in the future. It seems wrong to do well in the future and keep all that money, having left employees in a bad situation.

I dont feel so strongly about the banks. We'll never see that public money again - I cant get het up about anyone defaulting on a loan

I don't think many people think of bankruptcy so lightly. Certainly not people who start and run businesses. As skinnyamericano says, the people who have the courage to start their own business often end up creating employment and wealth for plenty of other people too, without the protection of company law there would be a lot fewer people willing to take the risk, gambling with your home and family would be a disincentive. And the process of a business going bankrupt is horrendous - most business owners know that it won't just affect them but also their employees. And the entrepreneur does not walk away 'scot free' - they can be censured and banned from being a company director again if they are deemed to have acted inappropriately for example, at the very least it makes finding future investment hard or even impossible.

YABVU I'm afraid.

The owners of a business are its shareholders - they each have a share in it, some have a majority of shares - a "controlling interest". A business which is a limited company "random name Ltd" exists in a legal bubble - it becomes a legal "person" in a way. It is only liable for its own debts in the same way a person is. If a person dies then anything they own must be used to pay their debts, if a company "dies" then the same thing happens.

If a person dies and the assets are less then the debts then the law does not go after their parents or children to pay their debts - even if that person had been financially supporting their parents or children. The law does not go after shareholders in a limited company just because the company had been supporting them. Bankruptcy means a company is financially dead. Its assets are used to pay debts but once the assets are gone that's it.

There are some exceptions to this, where there is unlimited personal liability, but the professionals in those cases (architects being one I think?) have very expensive professional liability insurance to cover any future claims. Lloyds Names (who underwrite insurance claims) also had unlimited personal liability, don't know if that's still the case, a whole lot of them went bankrupt in the 90's ...

YABU, and probably also jealous of him.

Bankruptcy is not always as final as people think, restriction orders can be used and should foreseen but undeclared assets turn up (not certain but I'm sure inheritance and stuff like that is included) they can go after it.

You need to distinguish between personal bankruptcy and a business going bankrupt needs. AUIU It's the latter caste here so all the assets would have been on the books. No inheritance likely from the company's great aunt Bertha

There are people who try to manipulate personal bankruptcy rules, but it's harder to do (and pretty pointless) with a limited company.

Its the modern way! Take all the risks you like but make sure your not accountable for when things go wrong. Same thing with the people in shairmi demanding the government fly them back or people that neglected their health for decades and expect the NHS to fix them up. People don't take personal accountability.

Many people say the first rule of business is to never gamble with your own money, like wanting to go to a casino with someone else Money.

It often is a very simple and non emotive decision to close down a limited company. Where I live several window and carpet places have subtly changed their names, as they rack up debt, close one company and start a new one where the name is slightly different.

He owned the house at the time of folding his business so some kind of hold should of been put on it.

Paying staff wages out of his own pocket is hardly that generous when he only had one full time member of staff and a few part timers. Hardly a property empire! How does someone run up 600k debt for a tiny "exclusive" estate agent?

YABU for all the reasons pp have given.

However, I think there would be far fewer bankruptcies if leveraged transactions and access to capital were better regulated.