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!

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

No, it doesn't work like that. People wouldn't set up businesses if they thought they could lose their house.

Lots of businesses went bust during the financial crisis through no fault of their own. Cash flow might have been good, but the banks were under tremendous pressure to recapitalise and therefore picked on many businesses whose security for loans had dipped below the level stipulated in the loan agreements.

So despite the fact that businesses could pay their loan instalments as normal, they were forced by their banks to either refinance or sell up. Those that could do neither had their property repossessed, and the banks were happy to get 50% of the debt back immediately and write off the remainder.

I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions about those who lost businesses during that period.

There are some very questionable "bankruptcies", and I don't understand how they are legal. Kerry Katona, for instance, declares bankruptcy and then carries on living a celebrity life. Various business people bleat that they have nothing, and their assets are all in their spouse's name. Often ex-spouse - a divorce quickly having taken place and the spouse's settlement conveniently having been very generous.

Again Rhoda, the need to distinguish between company bankruptcies and personal. And do you know the ins and outs of KK 'celebrity' lifestyle in detail .

Many people say the first rule of business is to never gamble with your own money - really Fruitylind? Who exactly says that? are you naive enough to think that you can start a business without any kind of financial commitment or guarantee of your own? That banks just say, yes that sounds like a great plan, here's £100k (without demanding personal guarantees on your assets, such as property) or a business investor won't say 'and what exactly are you risking in this new venture?' before committing their money? I think you are deluded and .

YABU there are a lot of far richer people out there making far more money out of house sales, the finance which was gained under dubious means which would be illegal in this country, than Phil Spencer.

In the UK (unlike the US) bankruptcy only refers to personal debt of an individual. Phil Spencer didn't go bankrupt but a company that he owned a majority interest in did go into administration (i.e. into a corporate insolvency process)

I agree with PP that limited liability companies are needed if you you want people to take business risks. How many people would ever start a company if they knew that their liability was unlimited.

Even if he had been made bankrupt (which he wasn't) his wife would also have an interest in their family home so he couldn't have just sold it.

If my business had left an employee out of pocket I'd definitely want to make good the loss if I was able in the future.

There is usually a gap between what is legal and what is ethical.