Chancer Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 I have noticed that what I thought was a French company set up by the UK parent company appears not to be so. It is the mobile phoen compay Lebara (see other thread) and this is what is printed on their invoices.LEBARA France LIMITED - societé de droit anglais, no 691029 - 25 Copthall Avenue Londres EC2R 7BP - Royaume UniEtablissement principal: Regus Paroi Nord La grande Arche - 92800 Puteaux.How does this work? Is it only advantageous to big companies?Could it be perhaps because they dont have any employees in France? If so it must have been the fairies that stamped and addressed my envelope [;-)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard51 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 A UK registered limited company can operate via a branch in France. The branch can be 'virtual' and only requires there to be a suitably authorised agent operating in France.Mrs R51 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velcorin Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Nothing untoward. The warehousing, distribution, etc will be outsourced to a specialist. You're right, there could well be no directly employed staff France. Again, nothing unusual, standard business practice for any cross border company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Streason Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Lebara ltd had 2009 turnover of over £170m with profit before tax of about £12m. They are owned by a Dutch company. They currently trade in Holland Denmark Spain Switzerland UK and Australia.France and Germany are new markets for them. They clearly seem to know what they are doing but Lebara France could be left to go bust if it is not successful. Get it whilst you can but dont risk too much until it is up and running and successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chancer Posted October 1, 2010 Author Share Posted October 1, 2010 [quote user="velcorin"]Nothing untoward. The warehousing, distribution, etc will be outsourced to a specialist. You're right, there could well be no directly employed staff France. Again, nothing unusual, standard business practice for any cross border company.[/quote]You missed the word sane! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Araucaria Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 [quote user="Stan Streason"]Lebara ltd had 2009 turnover of over £170m with profit before tax of about £12m. They are owned by a Dutch company. They currently trade in Holland Denmark Spain Switzerland UK and Australia.France and Germany are new markets for them. They clearly seem to know what they are doing but Lebara France could be left to go bust if it is not successful. Get it whilst you can but dont risk too much until it is up and running and successful.[/quote]If the UK company is trading in France through a branch that trades in other countries, it isn't possible for Lebara France (i.e. the French branch of Lebara Ltd) to be left to go bust if the branch is not successful. A branch cannot go bust separately. Obviously it can be closed, but creditors would get paid if the company of which it is a branch is still solvent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 [quote user="Araucaria"][quote user="Stan Streason"]Lebara ltd had 2009 turnover of over £170m with profit before tax of about £12m. They are owned by a Dutch company. They currently trade in Holland Denmark Spain Switzerland UK and Australia. France and Germany are new markets for them. They clearly seem to know what they are doing but Lebara France could be left to go bust if it is not successful. Get it whilst you can but dont risk too much until it is up and running and successful.[/quote]If the UK company is trading in France through a branch that trades in other countries, it isn't possible for Lebara France (i.e. the French branch of Lebara Ltd) to be left to go bust if the branch is not successful. A branch cannot go bust separately. Obviously it can be closed, but creditors would get paid if the company of which it is a branch is still solvent.[/quote]Ho ho ho - you don't know how the lovely gentlemen in suits use the law to legally not pay creditors.Nearly all large companies have holding companies to hide behind and often be in tax havens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Araucaria Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 [quote user="Dog"][quote user="Araucaria"][quote user="Stan Streason"]Lebara ltd had 2009 turnover of over £170m with profit before tax of about £12m. They are owned by a Dutch company. They currently trade in Holland Denmark Spain Switzerland UK and Australia. France and Germany are new markets for them. They clearly seem to know what they are doing but Lebara France could be left to go bust if it is not successful. Get it whilst you can but dont risk too much until it is up and running and successful.[/quote]If the UK company is trading in France through a branch that trades in other countries, it isn't possible for Lebara France (i.e. the French branch of Lebara Ltd) to be left to go bust if the branch is not successful. A branch cannot go bust separately. Obviously it can be closed, but creditors would get paid if the company of which it is a branch is still solvent.[/quote]Ho ho ho - you don't know how the lovely gentlemen in suits use the law to legally not pay creditors.........[/quote]You're wrong there Dog, before I retired I knew those lovely gentlement in suits very well indeed, and I knew what they did. How well do you know them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 I wasn't suggesting you had never met a man in a suit.I too have unfortunately met many men in suits that think it's clever to hide behind limited liability companies and milk the system to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Streason Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 Sorry I thought my post made it clear.Lebara Ltd and Lebara France Ltd are different companies, so technically France could be left to go bust but your views on it depend upon your attitude.99.9% of businesses dont go bust and leave creditors in the lurch but of course some people want to believe the worst the whole time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 Where do you get this figure of 99.9% - plus the statement needs clarifying.Perhaps someone with broadband could check out the facts on the amount of UK companies that have gone bust in the last few years and the amount of indebtedness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Streason Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 There are over 2m incorporated businesses registered at companies house plus thousands of unincorporated ones. There are 1.7m registered for VAT and 1.4m with PAYE schemes.The latest estimate is that about 26,500 businesses went into insolvent liquidation in 2009 (leaving 98.72% of the 2m registered still trading) My 99.9 guess was actually not that far out.There are undoubtedly some crooks out there but to base ones judgement of business in general on these is wildly incorrect and unhelpful to those out there with enough balls to take a risk and actually produce wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 I have never based my judgement of business on the crooks that abuse honest people.It is not necessary to produce wealth or create employment legally without limited liability.Only those that believe they may fail use this route.I trust you have seen how much money is outstanding on PAYE? The UK government are even concidering that businesses pay them nett for the weekly wages and the government deduct PAYE and pay the employee!!!How many times did you go bust Stan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonrouge Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 Dear Dog still (just) in harness and I from time to time wear a nice suit and yes advise clients who in my experience are genuine clients who simply wish to reduce their (legally) liability to taxation.Here a question is this wrong?Another question behind limited liability companies and not ones with £2 issued share capital and lots of Directors Loans are shareholders who invest and is it wrong that they seek to protect investments and to receive reward for investments? Here I am not talking about those who were are one-time supporters of the Conservative Party with alleged links to some island somewhere in the West Indies region.Then of course one Philip Green and it is not he but his wife who receive most of the dividends from his investments and he of course has been brought in by the Coalition to advise on business and efficiency? I find that amazing and he of course has a calendar in front of him every day with someone with a calculator and the calculation is of course days spent in the UKHere I must stress that this is entirely legal and some bigwig in London drafted a very expensive paper for one Philip Green..Sometime earlier in the piece it was the then norm to have unlimited liability companies and where those who ran the business were responsible for all of the debts of the company. These were traditionally agents let us say for shirts and the like and they did not wish to disclose to their competitors the amount of their commission and thus no accounts at Companies House.Finally and something that I was very closely involved with. Now a PLC and with a share price of £11.00 and very profitable. Quickly moving on the Directors charged their houses to the bank put capital in and developed an idea. They were exposed! However first year £1M turnover bottom line £500,000 profit. IN those days one could claim 100% writing down allowances for investments. There was no way that the profit could be shielded. I was part of a transaction where we put together within house a leasing business and we leased to A covenants such as local authorities and the like. We continued with this profitable side until 100% allowances were withdrawn. The Directors did not wish to avoid tax they simply wished to continue R % D within the business.They now employ 4000+ people in the UK and overseas have received countless Queens awards for export and both Directors (not me) Knighted.Is what we came up with morally ethically wrong?Essentially what I am saying good bad everywhere including lawyers including Barristers including Bankers and indeed labourers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Streason Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 [quote user="Dog"]I have never based my judgement of business on the crooks that abuse honest people.It is not necessary to produce wealth or create employment legally without limited liability.Only those that believe they may fail use this route.I trust you have seen how much money is outstanding on PAYE? The UK government are even concidering that businesses pay them nett for the weekly wages and the government deduct PAYE and pay the employee!!!How many times did you go bust Stan?[/quote]I use this site to glean helpful information and sometimes if possible, I even try to give it.I am too old to get into an internet argument with someone I don't know who clearly either does not know what he is talking about or is being deliberately obtuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard51 Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 Directors of most small companies are required to give personal guarantees (secured on assets such as their home etc) for any borrowings - so the security of 'limited liability status' is pretty 'limited'.Mrs R51 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 [quote user="Stan Streason"][quote user="Dog"]I have never based my judgement of business on the crooks that abuse honest people.It is not necessary to produce wealth or create employment legally without limited liability.Only those that believe they may fail use this route.I trust you have seen how much money is outstanding on PAYE? The UK government are even concidering that businesses pay them GROSS for the weekly wages and the government deduct PAYE and pay the employee!!!How many times did you go bust Stan?[/quote] I use this site to glean helpful information and sometimes if possible, I even try to give it. I am too old to get into an internet argument with someone I don't know who clearly either does not know what he is talking about or is being deliberately obtuse.[/quote]Sorry about your aging. Things must have changed since your day.I have ammended my error in the above quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 [quote user="Richard51"]Directors of most small companies are required to give personal guarantees (secured on assets such as their home etc) for any borrowings - so the security of 'limited liability status' is pretty 'limited'.Mrs R51[/quote] Sounds fine except their personal guarantees are mostly only on borrowings which make up a very small amount of their turnover.When limited companies go bust thereare usually lots of unsecured creditors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard51 Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 Turnover and net assets are very different things Dog... Like Stan S, methinks this is a pointless discussion DogMrs R51 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 [quote user="dragonrouge"]Dear Dog still (just) in harness and I from time to time wear a nice suit and yes advise clients who in my experience are genuine clients who simply wish to reduce their (legally) liability to taxation. Here a question is this wrong? Another question behind limited liability companies and not ones with £2 issued share capital and lots of Directors Loans are shareholders who invest and is it wrong that they seek to protect investments and to receive reward for investments? Here I am not talking about those who were are one-time supporters of the Conservative Party with alleged links to some island somewhere in the West Indies region. Then of course one Philip Green and it is not he but his wife who receive most of the dividends from his investments and he of course has been brought in by the Coalition to advise on business and efficiency? I find that amazing and he of course has a calendar in front of him every day with someone with a calculator and the calculation is of course days spent in the UK Here I must stress that this is entirely legal and some bigwig in London drafted a very expensive paper for one Philip Green.. Sometime earlier in the piece it was the then norm to have unlimited liability companies and where those who ran the business were responsible for all of the debts of the company. These were traditionally agents let us say for shirts and the like and they did not wish to disclose to their competitors the amount of their commission and thus no accounts at Companies House. Finally and something that I was very closely involved with. Now a PLC and with a share price of £11.00 and very profitable. Quickly moving on the Directors charged their houses to the bank put capital in and developed an idea. They were exposed! However first year £1M turnover bottom line £500,000 profit. IN those days one could claim 100% writing down allowances for investments. There was no way that the profit could be shielded. I was part of a transaction where we put together within house a leasing business and we leased to A covenants such as local authorities and the like. We continued with this profitable side until 100% allowances were withdrawn. The Directors did not wish to avoid tax they simply wished to continue R % D within the business. They now employ 4000+ people in the UK and overseas have received countless Queens awards for export and both Directors (not me) Knighted. Is what we came up with morally ethically wrong? Essentially what I am saying good bad everywhere including lawyers including Barristers including Bankers and indeed labourers![/quote]I would suggest that the present laws need changing. Philip Green should not be able to avoid paying his way by threatening to leave the UK - I'd say cheerio to him.I would suggest investors take the downside as well as the upside and shouldn't avoid liability.I can only say that my dealings with finance/leasing companies gave me a very worrying view of the way they used the allowance system and the way they traded.Business shouldn't be about using loopholes in the sytem to make a quick buck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebaynut Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 Winners make the rules.Losers live by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CeeJay Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 DogSurely this must all be a Masonic conspiracy !!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 Sadly money makes money and money does not make better people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.