Big Green Gathering 2009

[eFestivals]

Giving the benefit of the doubt, papers advising them of the intent to apply for an injunction, could be considered "injunction papers".

Except they claim to be advised by a "leading QC".

it certainly seems to be the case that someone somewhere seems to think that a particular thing is something different.

But on a slight tangent, I've just been pointed at the London Gazette, dated 7/7/09.

** FIRST GAZETTE NOTICES ****

COMPANIES ACT 1985

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, PURSUANT TO SECTION 652 OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1985, THAT AT THE END OF THREE MONTHS FROM

THE DATE OF THE PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE, THE NAMES OF THE COMPANIES IN THE LIST BELOW WILL, UNLESS CAUSE IS

SHOWN TO THE CONTRARY, BE STRUCK OFF THE REGISTER AND THE COMPANIES WILL BE DISSOLVED.

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/822...supplements/580

So the company will cease to exist on 7/10/09 unless anyone sends in a valid objection.

The link you give only gives a list of company names and dates, and not the "notice" statement you quote above. On searching that site, a whole bunch of Big Green entries come up, with another load of dates.

So I'm wondering if the "notice" statement is actually applicable to that listing, or if it's to do with something else company related, such as new directors appointed, or a change of company address, or things like that? Have you perhaps made an error?

(If you haven't, then it looks very weird given the date alongside of that mention).

[strudders]

So I'm wondering if the "notice" statement is actually applicable to that listing, or if it's to do with something else company related, such as new directors appointed, or a change of company address, or things like that? Have you perhaps made an error?

[Hairyloon]

So I'm wondering if the "notice" statement is actually applicable to that listing, or if it's to do with something else company related, such as new directors appointed, or a change of company address, or things like that? Have you perhaps made an error?

[Ringoid]

If anyone like me is not that happy with the refund arrangements, basically the part that says "we dont know how much you will get back and how long it will take, oh well it wasn't our fault." (I cant beleive they actually wrote that!)

If you paid with a Visa Debit card you should have the same protection rights as if you paid with a credit card. I have just started chargeback procedings by phoning my bank so I will hopefully get some money back even if they go under. Your bank may need persuading that this is possible as it's quite a new thing though.

[dandreamweva]

it certainly seems to be the case that someone somewhere seems to think that a particular thing is something different.

The link you give only gives a list of company names and dates, and not the "notice" statement you quote above. On searching that site, a whole bunch of Big Green entries come up, with another load of dates.

So I'm wondering if the "notice" statement is actually applicable to that listing, or if it's to do with something else company related, such as new directors appointed, or a change of company address, or things like that? Have you perhaps made an error?

(If you haven't, then it looks very weird given the date alongside of that mention).

[eFestivals]

Actually, if you look at Page 574, you will see that the list of companies Page 575-580 are in fact companies due to be struck off within 3 months of 7/7/09. So the information is correct, it seems. That certainly complicates matters, especially as this notice was published several weeks before the event was even cancelled!

wow, you're right!

I just double checked what the company name is on the big green's website, and because that doesn't mention the "The" that's included in the name on the Gazette website, I've checked at Companies house, and there's only the company with "The" in the name, so it's the same company.

I guess it's possible that they are/were in the process of switching to another company, possibly as a way of losing some of the liabilities still owed from the 2007 festival, tho I'm not at all sure of how things like that work - I guess that you're a man with experience of that Dan, so perhaps you'd know how it works?

Anyway, you're right - it certainly complicates things, and even suggests a pre-formed plan to run away from losses incurred this year if the festival had gone ahead. Perhaps the council and police got wind of this, and it was a part of the worries they had about the licence conditions not going to be met.

I wonder how many of the BGG's own shareholders knew of this plan to dissolve the company?

[beamends]

Actually, if you look at Page 574, you will see that the list of companies Page 575-580 are in fact companies due to be struck off within 3 months of 7/7/09. So the information is correct, it seems. That certainly complicates matters, especially as this notice was published several weeks before the event was even cancelled!

[Sawdusty surfer]

Blimey !

and i'm still confidant that the phoenix will rise from the ashes, in one form or another ;-)

[strudders]

UK Hippy has new additional info on why they were in the Gazette as well as the process. However I will not link to the site as I don't think that is allowed.

All very interesting.