Reform On Brink Of Major Resignation As Nigel Farage Ousts Ben Habib

[Unlucky4Sum]

So Google is lying now?

No but what it links to may be less that the legal definition of 'insolvent' that you pretend the likes of the Byline Times are the official reference of.

One more time:  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/options-when-a-company-is-insolvent/options-when-a-company-is-insolvent 

'A company is insolvent when it can't pay its debts'

'When' and not 'Before'

[Borg Refinery]

So Google is lying now?

[Unlucky4Sum]

Where do they say anything about what a "technical insolvency" is? Are you saying it doesn't exist as a term in the UK? Guess moneytalks.co.uk is lying then. And the UK Collins Dictionary.

But you have the last word, you've dug in and know you're wrong

Look you posted a false statement about what a 'factual insolvency' was.  To which I replied with the single word 'Nope'

You then went off on one with all sorts of trolling and are still living in denial that you've been given the actual official definition of insolvency.  
 

[Borg Refinery]

In the UK and for UK companies it's what the Insolvency Service says that matters and they say you're wrong

Where do they say anything about what a "technical insolvency" is? Are you saying it doesn't exist as a term in the UK? Guess moneytalks.co.uk is lying then. And the UK Collins Dictionary.

But you have the last word, you've dug in and know you're wrong

[Streetwalker]

Well that's good, I guess Habib's strong slagging off of the party never happened

https://www.gbnews.com/politics/ben-habib-speaks-out-reform-uk-sacked-deputy-leader-nigel-farage

Wonder if the party will self-destruct with rage

Free speech and freedom to criticise is fair enough . Habib has always as far as I know promoted a more democratic party with which I agree .That won't happen though until the owners decide its the way forward , there isn't in effect anything there to self destruct .

[Unlucky4Sum]

In the UK and for UK companies it's what the Insolvency Service says that matters and they say you're wrong 

[Borg Refinery]

1) The italics mean it's a copy and paste, so it's not my own direct words? So I didn't "say" it in my own words - I just reposted the working definition as defined by Google

2) You have yet to prove a word you've actually written.

My definition in full from the source (asking Google directly, first result):

[color=var(--m3c11)]Yes, factual insolvency is also known as technical insolvency. It's a financial situation where a company or individual's liabilities, or debts, are greater than their assets, or cash, investments, and other resources. 


[/font][/size][/color]
[color=var(--m3c11)]Technical insolvency is different from actual insolvency, or cash flow insolvency, which occurs when a company can't pay its debts to lenders or vendors. 


[/font][/size][/color]
[color=var(--m3c11)]Technical insolvency can happen when a company's liabilities increase faster than its assets due to more debt or borrowing. It can also happen when a person takes out a housing loan to buy a property that loses value. 


[/font][/size][/color]
[color=var(--m3c11)]Even though a company is technically insolvent, it may still be able to pay its short-term obligations by: Borrowing, Selling assets, and Generating cash flow. [/font][/size][/color]

Now carefully trace with your finger where gov.uk mentions either factual or technical insolvencies?

In South Africa, they seem to have a different definition but that's South Africa.

[Unlucky4Sum]

Seems you forgot the statement I challenged

Technically insolvent, also known as factual insolvency, means that a company's liabilities (debts) are greater than its assets (what it owns).

No one forced you to say 'factual insolvency'  No one stopped you retracting it, no one's stopping you apologising for digging in on a false supposition and then making sneering false insinuations about what I think of Reform UK's management.

Anyway the Dan Evans match is over now.  Toodlepip

[Borg Refinery]

The definitions don't come from the Byline Times, the working definitions were defined by the Collins Dictionary, Investopedia among many others (Moneytalks is a British site).

You don't understand the difference between an insolvency and a technical insolvency, clearly, yet regularly lecture others on reading comprehension/remedial lessons and so on. The irony is almost a little too much.

Why don't you go and ask the government what a technical insolvency is and see how you fare? Good luck with ringing up companies house, I expect they get a lot of fools asking stupid questions who know better than the dictionary every single day

If you want to keep failing at pedantry, which is your forte, and continue to defend Reform UK be my guest. Your rage is now plain to see.

[Unlucky4Sum]

You go argue with the Government Insolvency Department then about what Insolvency means for a British company.  They probably need a laugh when some fool says 'but the Byline Times told me that  . . ."

And while you're at it go shove your false insinuation that  'Maybe you are OK with a right-wing billionaire bankrolling a party single handedly then using short money to recover the amount, but others aren't OK with that undemocratic farce of a 'public limited party'.

[Borg Refinery]

Now what are you spamming about? The article I posted from Byline Times clearly said "technically insolvent". The goalposts never moved except in your mind.

Spamming overlarge images from gov.uk (under copyright, as you love to lecture on such things) doesn't change the working definition of what a technical insolvency is and that doesn't mention what one is.

I accept you know better than the EU about the definition of a political union just like you know better than Investopedia, Moneytalks and many others about what technical insolvency means. The Collins Dictionary is also inferior to you.

Your superiority shines through as ever

[Unlucky4Sum]

As I was saying, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/options-when-a-company-is-insolvent/options-when-a-company-is-insolvent:

[Unlucky4Sum]

Oh do stop moving the goalposts just because you're wrong.

[Borg Refinery]

As the UK Government definition put it:  'A company is insolvent when it can't pay its debts.'

"technically insolvent" has been defined already and they are technically insolvent according to their own books, a Labour peer pointed this out too

Perhaps, perhaps not. Tice and Farage were likely expecting to become MPs at this point. They would understand that getting several MPs and a large number of votes would entitle the party to Short money: public funding handed out to political parties to level the playing field between Government and opposition, and stop parties being 100% reliant on well-off private donors. 

Labour peer Prem Sikka, emeritus professor of accounting at the University of Essex, told Byline Times: "Reform UK is technically insolvent, and survives because it is bankrolled by loans from Richard Tice. Ironically, after the election Reform [now] receives public money to cover the amount repaid to Tice."

https://bylinetimes.com/2024/08/29/reform-uk-repays-200k-to-side-lined-leader-days-after-nigel-farage-dethrones-him/

Maybe you are OK with a right-wing billionaire bankrolling a party single handedly then using short money to recover the amount, but others aren't OK with that undemocratic farce of a 'public limited party'.

[Unlucky4Sum]

When it comes to being insolvent in UK law then it's what the UK Government says that matters.

Loads of companies have long term loans that exceed their assets, no one declares them insolvent until they can't pay what's due.