McCanns Limited Fund Late Filing Accounts

We could argue this all night LOL

"This shall not prevent any payment in good faith by the Foundation of:
2D.2.1 any payments made to any member, Director or Connected Person in their capacity as a beneficiary, "

If the directors could not be beneficiaries then this statement wouldn't be there. Just my opinion of course

gillyspot wrote:We could argue this all night LOL

"This shall not prevent any payment in good faith by the Foundation of:
2D.2.1 any payments made to any member, Director or Connected Person in their capacity as a beneficiary, "

If the directors could not be beneficiaries then this statement wouldn't be there. Just my opinion of course

Hi gillyspot,

It relates directly to the McCanns because they are Directors....so in fact, they can claim Fees as Directors AND Beneficiaries.

gillyspot wrote:We could argue this all night LOL

"This shall not prevent any payment in good faith by the Foundation of:
2D.2.1 any payments made to any member, Director or Connected Person in their capacity as a beneficiary, "

If the directors could not be beneficiaries then this statement wouldn't be there. Just my opinion of course

We couldn't - I would be bored

Regarding your last statement - it presupposes someone sensible took the time and trouble to properly read the clauses. Given that there is no definition of terms like "beneficiary", the circularity of membership/directorship etc that is highly questionable. The clause existed in the original version when it had some purpose (if one interprets "beneficiary" by common usage) since family directors could indeed be "beneficiaries". The fact it is still there doesn't give it wider meaning but simply defines the editor.

I should have added the more important question is why the change to the objectives now.

You are not implying the changes were made without careful reading are you - remember the "fund" is paying & money seems to be no object there (well who would know as money flows out of that fund like a waterfall with no evidence of where it is spent to be found.

gillyspot wrote:You are not implying the changes were made without careful reading are you - remember the "fund" is paying & money seems to be no object there (well who would know as money flows out of that fund like a waterfall with no evidence of where it is spent to be found.

Yup

We are in agreement at last. I wasn't going to be able to sleep.

BTW Chris your avatar is very cute. I am glad I changed mine (and no JATYK2 it wasn't because of you).

Yes one would ask why the change in objects now.Could it be that 5 years is approaching and that may usually be the time to declare a missing person dead ?


eta Dont think there is a specific time period,though there is something about seven years i have read.But 5 years is a time when one might be thinking about that.

But Madeleine is "alive" and "findable" acording to the McCanns even though they have less evidence of that than an abduction in the first place.

Sadly the UK media are now saying "fund is low" so watch the flood of donations from those who don't read the media & know there is a £3+ million review going on and also about Kate's advance royalty payment for her book.

It reminds me off a will ....the beneficiary off the will get the money.



So does this mean that as the mccanns are directors then they are also beneficiaries off the Fund and when the review states that Madeleine is probably no longer alive and the mccanns wind up the fund leaving ....say 1m in the fund.....they get what is left in the fund and don't have to donate the money to missing persons like they said that they would?

kitti wrote:It reminds me off a will ....the beneficiary off the will get the money.



So does this mean that as the mccanns are directors then they are also beneficiaries off the Fund and when the review states that Madeleine is probably no longer alive and the mccanns wind up the fund leaving ....say 1m in the fund.....they get what is left in the fund and don't have to donate the money to missing persons like they said that they would?

Afraid so Kitti, since there is nothing mentioned in the M & A. All the remaining Directors of FindMadeleine except Smethurst signed accepting the resolution
and it looks like they will not seek any more donations, I should think not!!! and await the SY report before publically accepting that Madeleine is probably no longer alive. If the McCann/Amaral Trial is cancelled that's a blow because that was the only chance of new information being revealed.

I'm old enough to KNOW that
"If it looks like a scam, smells like a scam, and acts like a scam, then it probably is a scam...."
AND
"If it ain't broke, why fix it?"

They cant pull out off the trial as mr Amaral is taking action against them also.


When he wins I wonder if he will also take action against the British press.

kitti wrote:They cant pull out off the trial as mr Amaral is taking action against them also.


When he wins I wonder if he will also take action against the British press.

I hope he has the sense not to - the Press will do a "volta face" and become champions of Justice within two or less microseconds.

kitti wrote:They cant pull out off the trial as mr Amaral is taking action against them also.


When he wins I wonder if he will also take action against the British press.

Kitti, I think they can if the McCanns decide to settle out of Court. Amaral has the Correia case two days later I think.

I wouldn"t be surprised if this is why Cabrita advised the Court .

Lioned wrote:Yes one would ask why the change in objects now.Could it be that 5 years is approaching and that may usually be the time to declare a missing person dead ?


eta Dont think there is a specific time period,though there is something about seven years i have read.But 5 years is a time when one might be thinking about that.

The cynic in me thinks it might be linked to the libel trial. Maybe they have been given advice that the clause could allow a claim against their piggy bank fund if they lose.

Chris wrote:

Lioned wrote:Yes one would ask why the change in objects now.Could it be that 5 years is approaching and that may usually be the time to declare a missing person dead ?


eta Dont think there is a specific time period,though there is something about seven years i have read.But 5 years is a time when one might be thinking about that.

The cynic in me thinks it might be linked to the libel trial. Maybe they have been given advice that the clause could allow a claim against their piggy bank fund if they lose.

Agree totaly Chris, imo alot of the fund money (apart from what CR have had) is nessled away just incase its needed if it all goes wrong and I believe it is starting too.

Lillyofthevalley wrote:

Chris wrote:

Lioned wrote:Yes one would ask why the change in objects now.Could it be that 5 years is approaching and that may usually be the time to declare a missing person dead ?


eta Dont think there is a specific time period,though there is something about seven years i have read.But 5 years is a time when one might be thinking about that.

The cynic in me thinks it might be linked to the libel trial. Maybe they have been given advice that the clause could allow a claim against their piggy bank fund if they lose.

Agree totaly Chris, imo alot of the fund money (apart from what CR have had) is nessled away just incase its needed if it all goes wrong and I believe it is starting too.

I agree... plenty of dosh nestled away for a stormy day. Imagine if it all went pear shaped; they don't even have the luxury of just taking care of themselves. United they stand divided they ALL fall. Lots of very expensive balls will need juggling like crazy in the event the gruesome twosome get rumbled.

Chris wrote:

Lioned wrote:Yes one would ask why the change in objects now.Could it be that 5 years is approaching and that may usually be the time to declare a missing person dead ?


eta Dont think there is a specific time period,though there is something about seven years i have read.But 5 years is a time when one might be thinking about that.

The cynic in me thinks it might be linked to the libel trial. Maybe they have been given advice that the clause could allow a claim against their piggy bank fund if they lose.

Good thinking.Seems obvious now.

Natalee holloway was declared dead today by Judge, she disappeared in 2005, six years ago.

www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/229555+%22MADELEINE+MCCANN+FUND+IN+TROUBLE%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9udvl3BPrksJ:www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/229555+%22MADELEINE+MCCANN+FUND+IN+TROUBLE%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

"In view of this, Kate made the decision to write a book"

Who pocketed the advance paid by Transworld, who pocketed the £200,000 paid by the Sun? The McCanns. The fund only received the Royalties.
It is a well kept secret how much in Royalties has been paid into the Fund accounts. I was checking out Amazon the other day and the Paperback is well
off the bestsellers list.

From the New Special Resolution Amendments:

"Indemnity"

Subject to the Act but without prejudice or any indemnity to which a Director may otherwise be entitled, every Director or other officer of the Foundation shall be indemnified out of the assets of the Foundation:

49.1 Against all costs charged or liabilities incurred by him or her'

49.1.1 in defending any civil or crimnal proceedings in which judgement is given in his or her favour or in which he or
she is acquitted

So this would be payments made for the Libel Cases being brought by Pat Brown and any possible criminal proceedings against them too. But only if the McCanns win - will they have to pay if they lose?

Probably not sadly.

gillyspot wrote:From the New Special Resolution Amendments:

"Indemnity"

Subject to the Act but without prejudice or any indemnity to which a Director may otherwise be entitled, every Director or other officer of the Foundation shall be indemnified out of the assets of the Foundation:

49.1 Against all costs charged or liabilities incurred by him or her'

49.1.1 in defending any civil or crimnal proceedings in which judgement is given in his or her favour or in which he or
she is acquitted

So this would be payments made for the Libel Cases being brought by Pat Brown and any possible criminal proceedings against them too. But only if the McCanns win - will they have to pay if they lose?


Probably not sadly.

Hi gillyspot,

No, If they win they keep the money and if they lose the Fund pays the cost. It really is a travesty that they are allowed to get away with it. I truly
hope they get their commuppance for the sake of Madeleine and all the schoolchildren who donated by making cakes and ribbons, people who probably
don"t earn much etc.

Panda wrote:

gillyspot wrote:From the New Special Resolution Amendments:

"Indemnity"

Subject to the Act but without prejudice or any indemnity to which a Director may otherwise be entitled, every Director or other officer of the Foundation shall be indemnified out of the assets of the Foundation:

49.1 Against all costs charged or liabilities incurred by him or her'

49.1.1 in defending any civil or crimnal proceedings in which judgement is given in his or her favour or in which he or
she is acquitted

So this would be payments made for the Libel Cases being brought by Pat Brown and any possible criminal proceedings against them too. But only if the McCanns win - will they have to pay if they lose?


Probably not sadly.

Hi gillyspot,

No, If they win they keep the money and if they lose the Fund pays the cost. It really is a travesty that they are allowed to get away with it. I truly
hope they get their commuppance for the sake of Madeleine and all the schoolchildren who donated by making cakes and ribbons, people who probably
don"t earn much etc.

I read it differently, that the fund would pay costs if they won any action, or if charged, they were acquitted.

I am sure it is only paid if they win.

What I do find interesting is that although there was a mention of them using the fund when WINNING against Amaral in the book injunction (so that donors would be aware that funds were spent on this) there is none in the latest accounts stating they have lost twice (since when have the McCanns shared when they are losing) and explaining the future money spent on the libel case against Amaral.

Would this (money to be spent in Feb's 2012's trial be coming from Kate's book advance as it doesn't appear in the accounts so must have been held back from the Fund IMO).