Landal Belvedere go into administration

masonic

axolotl56 said:

I think there might have been an agreement between Landal Greenparks and Belvedere Leisure Resorts plc with regards to sharing profits from Barnsoul.  Also there exists a Plot Certificate signed on behalf of Belvedere Leisure Resorts plc.  The company names are deliberately misleading.  BLRplc has not published certified accounts since those of 30 June 2021.

That makes things a little clearer. So according to the administrators of Apple Invest, the land at Barnsoul is owned by Apple, not BLRplc, so any certificate provided by the latter cannot confer a legal interest in land. As you highlighted here, the administrators of Apple have confirmed this: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81181028/#Comment_81181028

The administrators have probably by now completed on the sale of the land and the proceeds will be used to repay Apple's creditors. BLRplc does not appear to have any claim to the proceeds.

The existing lodges on the Barnsoul site appear to be provided by BLRplc, and presumably these have been purchased by early investors in the scheme. There will be an income stream from these going into BLRplc, but there is also a legal charge over all of the assets of BLRplc, meaning there is a higher priority creditor that will have to be repaid in full before those investing in non-existent lodges via 'certificate' would see any money. As well as the secured creditor, the administrators state that BLRplc owes Apple nearly £6m, while Apple owes its direct creditors close to £20m (including a mortgage against the Barnsoul site).

Anyone who invested a plot directly with Apple would seem to have a valid claim, as the administrators are recognising these and there seem to be assets to meet most of these (the amount owed to investors has inflated from £9.5m to over £20m between the initial proposals and update, the extent of their shortfall will depend on the accuracy of the valuations in the SoA and how much can be extracted from Apple's debtors - noting BLRplc will be a substantial problem). Anyone who invested through BLRplc should probably expect to receive nothing, although maybe it still has some of the money collected from investors available to be refunded.

jimjames

Due to the lack of filing accounts with Companies House no-one can see what activity is taking place by BLR plc. They've been listed for being struck off but it's now been suspended as objection received. If they really do own or owe anything then it's not a good sign that they've reached this stage where the company is being struck off.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11976912/filing-history

Their website makes "interesting" reading. They're currently developing Snowdonia National park whatever that means.

https://www.blrplc.com/current-developments

They also list Barnsoul under legacy developments with a list of phases

https://www.blrplc.com/legacy-resorts

masonic

Very interesting. Wouldn't surprise me if the administrators were the ones to object to the striking off, given they'd have no-one to chase for the money they claim is owed to Apple in respect of the JV if the company was dissolved. It's not hard to predict what will happen when the Apple administration moves into liquidation and they attempt to enforce their claim against BLRplc.

axolotl56

You may be right re administrators. If you read their proposal for Apple it says McAlister were approached by Belvedere (BLRplc) in Nov 2023 and introduced to Capital Bridging Blue 1 Ltd in April 2024 and were engaged in May. What it doesn't say is that Keith Aldridge terminated his directorship in Belvedere (BLRplc) on 5 March 2024 and set up Capital Bridging Blue 1 Ltd on 6 March 2024. Administrators' proposal says 13 March 2024 Capital Bridging Blue 1 Ltd bought out the first of Apple's secured debts.

StateofAffairs

masonic said:

Very interesting. Wouldn't surprise me if the administrators were the ones to object to the striking off, given they'd have no-one to chase for the money they claim is owed to Apple in respect of the JV if the company was dissolved. It's not hard to predict what will happen when the Apple administration moves into liquidation and they attempt to enforce their claim against BLRplc.

I'm a bit thick today. Perhaps you can explain why Apple or Apple Admin might have a claim against BLR? I thought BLR was buying the physical lodges, and that Apple was marketing the lodge investments to fund the development, and that Landal GreenParks was drip-feeding back to investors. 

masonic

StateofAffairs said:

masonic said:

Very interesting. Wouldn't surprise me if the administrators were the ones to object to the striking off, given they'd have no-one to chase for the money they claim is owed to Apple in respect of the JV if the company was dissolved. It's not hard to predict what will happen when the Apple administration moves into liquidation and they attempt to enforce their claim against BLRplc.

I'm a bit thick today. Perhaps you can explain why Apple or Apple Admin might have a claim against BLR? I thought BLR was buying the physical lodges, and that Apple was marketing the lodge investments to fund the development, and that Landal GreenParks was drip-feeding back to investors. 

That's a question for the administrators, but it appears to be a consequence of the terms of the JV. It could be as simple as they provided some capital up front that was supposed to be used towards acquiring the lodges.

axolotl56

Just for information - Belvedere Leisure Resorts plc is now a private company called Belvedere Leisure Resorts Limited.

StateofAffairs

axolotl56 said:

Just for information - Belvedere Leisure Resorts plc is now a private company called Belvedere Leisure Resorts Limited.

Is it permitted to change company names of JV's without agreement of BOTH parties, in this case Apple (or Joint Admin MacAlister) would need to approve the change surely? Especially tricky when BLR ex dir Capital Blue has taken on loan charges of Apple and lodge investment interest is not being paid. All it takes is another name change and things become SO MUCH HARDER to trace.

masonic

StateofAffairs said:

axolotl56 said:

Just for information - Belvedere Leisure Resorts plc is now a private company called Belvedere Leisure Resorts Limited.

Is it permitted to change company names of JV's without agreement of BOTH parties, in this case Apple (or Joint Admin MacAlister) would need to approve the change surely? Especially tricky when BLR ex dir Capital Blue has taken on loan charges of Apple and lodge investment interest is not being paid. All it takes is another name change and things become SO MUCH HARDER to trace.

I wouldn't have thought entering into a joint venture would prevent either party to the venture changing name (or going private as is the effect of this change). A term could be put into the agreement between the two companies, but it may not be enforceable. Rather like a term that both parties must remain solvent for the duration of the agreement If Apple were a shareholder in its partner company, then it would have had a vote in the resolution, but I don't think it is.

The good news is the 2021/22 accounts have finally been filed, so we can look forward to perusing those in a few days time.

jimjames

axolotl56 said:

Just for information - Belvedere Leisure Resorts plc is now a private company called Belvedere Leisure Resorts Limited.

plc in the name means nothing these days, it's still possible to be a private company despite the designation of PLC. The main difference is share capital and that could be the reason - you need at least £50k for a plc but only £1 for a Ltd. So not really any change in status, just a change in name.

Some of the entities related to London Capital & Finance went through multiple name changes where different companies had the same name at different times which makes tracing them very hard.