Is allowing a bankrupt company to change its name and continue as a BAR ATN in BAR’s interest?
It’s not often that The Mover is contacted by an ex-BAR president asking for a subject to be aired, but that’s exactly what happened recently. Annie Neave, and her husband Bob Holmes, of Britannia Neaves of East Anglia were concerned about recent commercial activity in their area that they believe is bringing BAR into disrepute and making local suppliers “spitting mad”. They wish to alert the industry so that others can make a judgement and, perhaps, support their view.
On 12 March, 2012 APAK Removals & Storage of Dereham went into voluntary liquidation. A creditors’ meeting was held on 21 March, 2012 which resulted in EuroGroup of Mildenhall acquiring the name. On 16 May, 2012 the company’s webside carried an announcement that the company was now APAK Relocation and was an Alternative Trading Name (ATN) of EuroGroup. In the May edition of Removals & Storage magazine, an announcement said that the company was applying to BAR to use APAK Relocation as an ATN of EuroGroup.
There is no suggestion that anyone has done anything illegal or morally questionable: it’s actually very straightforward and the kind of transaction that takes place daily throughout industry. The question is whether BAR should accept the ATN when the organisation is clearly one resurrected from a failed company, one that went bankrupt owing suppliers money?
At the time of writing, the company’s website was still live, under the old name and sporting the BAR/OFT logo. It carries the announcement about the change of ownership, confirms that the management team remains unchanged, and calls itself “a successful Norfolk removal company”.
In an e-mail to BAR, Bob Holmes said that his objection was: “…primarily on the basis that the liquidation [of APAK Removals & Storage] meant many suppliers were left with a bad debt which will not be recovered.” He added that BAR itself was owed over £2,000 and a local estate agent over £40,000. There was much goodwill in the area from suppliers and he didn’t want that situation changed by having a bankrupt company, that owed in excess of £270,000 to creditors, apparently continuing to trade under the BAR banner.
Annie pointed out that although the ownership and name had changed, trade suppliers and members of the public would not immediately appreciate the difference. “It is one of the BAR’s membership criteria that a member should be ‘of good repute’,” she said. “Allowing this organisation to promote itself as being part of BAR doesn’t strike me as within the spirit of what BAR should stand for.”
Responding to Bob’s e-mail, BAR Director General Stephen Vickers said that BAR’s responsibility was to “…ensure that the Articles and rules of the Association are correctly complied with in an objective manner … if everything complies with the rules then we have no legal reason to prevent it.” He also said that if the website breached the BAR’s rules he would “take it up with EuroGroup”.
Annie said that she knows that people will see her complaint as being ‘sour grapes’. The company is a direct competitor and there is some ‘history’. “But it’s much more than that,” she said. “We have always been very loyal to BAR and, during my time on the Board I worked hard to uphold its values. I feel very strongly that if BAR’s rules allow this sort of thing within the Association, they should be changed to preserve its reputation and integrity. Customers and suppliers rely on BAR to provide some endorsement of a company’s quality and financial security. This seems to fly in the face of what BAR should stand for.”
Sir Douglas Bader, the World War II fighter ace, said: “Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.” Is this one of those cases when they should be applied in spirit or, if that is constitutionally impossible, amended?