Farepak Website Updated 17 July 2012

http://www.farepak.co.uk/

Unfairpak can advise that the cut off date for registering claims, updating names, changes of address etcetera has been extended until 7 August 2012 due to the volume of calls, emails etcetera by customers querying various points.

Please note that a PHOTOCOPY will suffice when you have to provide copy death certificate.

Same applies for a Marriage Certificate, a PHOTOCOPY will suffice.

Cheques will now begin to go out in September instead of August.

Updated 17 July 2012

 

Martha H Thompson and Dermot Power of BDO LLP, Kings Wharf, 20-30 Kings Road, Reading, Berkshire, RG1 3EX were appointed Joint Liquidators of Farepak on 4 October 2007.

This follows the appointment of Martha H Thompson and Shagun Dubey of BDO LLP, Kings Wharf, 20-30 Kings Road, Reading, Berkshire, RG1 3EX as Joint Administrators over the assets and business of Farepak on 13 October 2006.

Extension of Final Deadline to Submit Customer and Agent Claims

Following the announcement that the Joint Liquidators will be making dividend payments to creditors, including customers and agents, a number of people have asked for additional time so that they can make sure they have sent in their claims and have updated their personal details.

The Joint Liquidators can confirm that they will give customers and agents an additional three weeks, up to 7 August 2012, to make sure their claims and details are correct.

Because customers and agents are being allowed this extra time, this will mean that the Joint Liquidators will send out cheques during September.

Customers and agents who need to contact the Claims Management Team to submit a claim or to update their details should do so by 7 August 2012 by writing to Claims Management Team, Farepak Food & Gifts Limited – In Liquidation, PO Box 3404, Swindon, SN2 9EQ.

After 7 August 2012, the Joint Liquidators will begin the process of producing cheques and all of the money held by the Liquidators will be paid to creditors, including customers and agents, during September. This will mean that the Joint Liquidators will not be able to accept new claims from customers and agents that are sent in after 7 August 2012.

Joint Liquidators announce dividend payment

The Joint Liquidators of Farepak have announced that they will be making dividend payments to Farepak’s creditors, including customers and agents. In addition, the Joint Liquidators will at the same time distribute the £8million ex-gratia payment to customers and agents made by Lloyds Banking Group. The ex-gratia payment will be issued by the Joint Liquidators at no additional cost. The dividend payment – approved by the Liquidation Committee – marks the end of the liquidation of Farepak for creditors.

The Joint Liquidators have been working throughout the liquidation to recover as much money as possible for creditors as directed by the Liquidation Committee, which was set up by court order to represent all those who lost money as a result of the collapse of Farepak. This work has required the Joint Liquidators to investigate a number of possible claims and engage in legal proceedings with third parties. The Joint Liquidators have now finished their investigations and recovered as much money as possible for creditors and are in a position to pay a dividend.

Farepak collapsed leaving no money to pay a dividend to its creditors. The Joint Liquidators are now able to confirm that a payment will be made to customers and agents of approximately 32p in the £. This sum includes the dividend payment of approximately 13p in the £ secured by the Joint Liquidators and the £8million ex-gratia payment made by Lloyds Banking Group. The Joint Liquidators will aim to make payments to Farepak’s 114,000 creditors during September.

When added to the 17.5p in the £ given to all customers and agents by the Farepak Response Fund charity, set up by the Department for Trade and Industry in 2006, the dividend payment means that customers and agents of Farepak will have received a total of approximately 50p in the £.

Further details on dividend payments

By law, the Joint Liquidators must take certain steps during the time between the announcement of the dividend payment, and when the cheques are sent out to all creditors including customers and agents.

The Joint Liquidators have also agreed to give customers and agents an extra three weeks to allow them to provide information about their claims and to update their personal details.

Based on the time needed to complete the above, the Joint Liquidators will aim to make payments during September.

 

1. How much money will I get? 

The work undertaken by the Joint Liquidators has increased the dividend payable to approximately 13p in the £, compared to nothing when Farepak went into administration. The Joint Liquidators will also distribute the £8m ex-gratia payment to customers and agents made by Lloyds Banking Group at the same time as the dividend payments, This will mean that customers and agents will receive a total payment of approximately 32p in the £.

This will mean that, for example:

– a customer or agent with a claim of £100 will receive approximately £32;

– a customer or agent with a claim of £500 will receive approximately £160; and

– a customer or agent with a claim of £1,000 will receive approximately £320.

The Joint Liquidators will aim to make payments to Farepak’s 114,000 creditors during September.

 

2. Why are payments being made by cheque, and not directly into bank accounts?

 

The Joint Liquidators are making the dividend payments by cheque because it is the best way of ensuring the money reaches the right person in this case.

 

3. Is this the final payment I will receive?

 

The dividend payment is the total and final payment that will be made to creditors. The dividend payment marks the end of the liquidation of Farepak for creditors, including customers and agents.

 

4. Why has the estimated dividend changed?

 

As with all administration and liquidation processes, it is not possible to calculate the exact dividend payment until all monies are recovered, the final number of creditors is known and all work is completed. For this reason, all dividend figures that have been shared by the Joint Liquidators (formerly Joint Administrators) to date have been based on projections and clearly set out as estimates.

 

As directed by the Liquidation Committee, which was set up by court order to represent all those who lost money as a result of the collapse of Farepak, the Joint Liquidators have been working throughout the course of the administration and liquidation to recover as much money as possible for creditors, including customers and agents. This work has required the Joint Liquidators to investigate a number of possible claims and engage in legal proceedings with third parties. The Joint Liquidators have now finished their investigations and are in a position to pay a dividend.

 

The work undertaken by the Joint Liquidators has increased the dividend payable to approximately 13p in the £, compared to nothing when Farepak went into administration. The Joint Liquidators will also distribute the £8million ex-gratia payment to customers and agents made by Lloyds Banking Group at the same time as the dividend payment. This means that customers and agents will receive a total payment of approximately 32p in the £.

 

Changes of personal details

 

Changes of name

 

Creditors who have changed their name since submitting their original claim but not notified the Claims Management Team should register their change of name by sending details of their name, their agent’s number, the amount of their claim, a copy of their marriage certificate or copies of other documentation and their signature to Claims Management Team, Farepak Food & Gifts Limited – In Liquidation, PO Box 3404, Swindon, SN2 9EQ by 7 August. The Claims Management Team is not able to deal with changes of name over the telephone or via email for security reasons. The Joint Liquidators can confirm that customers and agents do not need to send in original certificates.

 

 

Changes of address

 

Creditors who have changed their address since submitting their original claim but not notified the Claims Management Team should register their change of address by sending details of their name, their agent’s number, the amount of their claim, their old address, their new address and their signature to Claims Management Team, Farepak Food & Gifts Limited – In Liquidation, PO Box 3404, Swindon, SN2 9EQ by 7 August. The Claims Management Team is not able to deal with changes of address over the telephone or via email for security reasons.

 

Notification of customer / agent death

 

We are not able to deal with notifications of death over the telephone for security reasons. If you wish to notify us of the death of an agent or customer, please send a copy of the death certificate and the new address for correspondence together with the agent’s number (if known), to: Claims Management Team, Farepak Food & Gifts Limited – In Liquidation, PO Box 3404 , Swindon, SN2 9EQ. The Joint Liquidators can confirm that customers and agents do not need to send in original certificates.

 

Report to Creditors

Please click here for information about the 2011 report to creditors

Trust Monies

Please click here for information about the Trust monies ruling on 31 July 2009.

Collapse of Choice & Consequences of same to Farepak

UNFAIRPAK MUST POINT OUT THAT ALL DEFENDANTS MENTIONED ARE INNOCENT UNLESS PROVEN OTHERWISE.

Taken from Skeleton Argument – THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION AND SKILLS

 

Collapse of Choice and the consequences thereof

 

176. On 30 January 2006 it became clear that the £12.1m payment due to be made to Choice that day could not be honoured,  and the CHAPS payment order was cancelled.

 On 31 January 2006 FFG paid Choice only some £6.5m of its £12.1m liability.  Choice went into administration the same day, “as a direct result of two major customers failing to pay their January accounts“, according to the joint administrators.


177. The fact that Choice had not been paid in full by FFG was known to Mr Rollason and Mr Fowler contemporaneously, and each of them was involved in discussions with Choice on 31 January.

177.1. Mr Gilodi-Johnson was told by Mr Hicks on Monday 30 January that the £12.1m payment had not been made, and went on to discuss the matter with both Mr Fowler and Mr Rollason shortly afterwards.

177.2. Mr Johns was informed of the administration of Choice by Mr Gilodi-Johnson on 1 February.113

177.3. Sir Clive Thompson learned of the collapse of Choice in a conversation with Mr Rollason on 1 February.114

177.4. Mr Munn’s evidence is that he first learned of the collapse of Choice upon reading an EHR board memorandum of 2 February from Mr Rollason, dealt with further below (the “2 February Memo”).

177.5. The evidence does not suggest that Mr Gillis knew of the collapse of Choice before receiving the 2 February Memo, which he discussed at the time with Mr Munn.116

178. Once the payment to Choice was missed and Choice collapsed, the Defendants knew or should have known that this was because of a lack of funding at the time. They should also have known that there was (at the least) a very high risk that payment terms would change in relation to any substitute supplier of vouchers and they should have been demanding a clear report as to what the effect of the collapse of Choice would mean. The directors should have monitored the position, including requiring appropriate financial modelling. Had they done so, the funding gap identified in forecasts by April 2006 would have come to light significantly earlier. An informed process leading to a decision as to whether to continue trading, and if so on the basis of what plans, could accordingly have been explored a lot sooner.

 

FAREPAK DIRECTORS TRIAL DAY 7 – 31 MAY 2012

Unfortunately not much to report today.  Mrs Burns, on behalf of the Secretary of State [Vince Cable] has finished giving evidence.

Court is still running behind so the schedule is a bit messed up and as we reported yesterday, witnesses were being shifted to some time “in the future…..”!

Court shall sit tomorrow, 1 June 2012 and then shall not re-sit until Tuesday, 12 June 2012.

Unfairpak feel this is significant time to appoint a journalist to the case and we are hopeful that someone will pick it up.

We shall be blogging over the next couple of days as we have various pieces of information regarding Farepak Food & Gifts Limited that we wish to share with you.

As always, if you require any help whatsoever, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH – PRESIDING JUDGE EHR/FAREPAK TRIAL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Smith_(judge

 

Sir Peter Winston Smith (born 1 May 1952), styled The Hon Mr Justice Peter Smith, is a Judge of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales, appointed to that office on 15 April 2002 and assigned to the Chancery Division.[1] His name is correctly abbreviated in English legal writing as “Peter Smith J,” and not as “Smith J,” because there are other senior judges also named Smith.

He has presided over several prominent cases, which include a suit between boxer Lennox Lewis and his promoter Panos Eliades, as well as a copyright case involving the novel The Da Vinci Code. In the latter case, he rejected a claim by authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail that Dan Brown had violated copyright by copying major themes from their work. More recently, Peter Smith J presided over a huge claim by the Attorney General of Zambia for recovery of the proceeds of fraud.[2] He was also involved in the early stages of the £100m Chelsea Barracks development, before being replaced at the last minute before the case came to trial.

In 2008 he was reprimanded by the Lord Chief Justice for his misconduct in the “Addleshaw Goddard matter”.

Biography

Smith was born in Taiping, Malaysia to George Arthur Smith and Iris Muriel Smith, while his father was posted abroad. He grew up with five siblings in Hornsea, East Yorkshire, and attended grammar school in nearby Bridlington.

He read law at Selwyn College, Cambridge. After receiving a BA degree in 1974 and an MA degree in 1976, Smith briefly practised in Liverpool before becoming a law lecturer at Manchester University from 1977-1983. Smith practised as a barrister on the Northern Circuit from 1979–2002, being an Assistant Recorder from 1994–97, a Deputy High Court Judge from 1996–2002, and a Recorder from 1997-2002. Upon his elevation to the High Court bench in 2002, Sir Peter was knighted as a matter of course.[3] In 2003 he was voted most unpopular chancery judge in a survey by Legal Business magazine.

In 1980, Smith married Diane Dalgleish. They have one son and two daughters. Smith is a member of the Titanic Historical Society and the British Titanic Society. Other hobbies include being a “Jackie Fisher fan”, reading military history, and football. He lives in Shropshire. In 2010 he made a controversial planning application for conversion of the coach house and porter’s lodge at his home into residential dwellings.

[edit] The Da Vinci Code and the “Smithy Code”

In April 2006, Smith ruled that Dan Brown had not breached the copyright of Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of the pseudo-historical book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. While Brown had taken ideas from the earlier book, he did not copy the “central theme” of his book from there. As ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted, Smith ruled that Brown had therefore not substantially copied the original work.[4]

Within his printed judgment,[5] which was delivered on 7 April 2006, the judge embedded a coded message, apparently placed for amusement. The first few pages contained scattered letters which were italicised. The first section spelt ‘smithy code’, followed by a number of other seemingly random letters. The judge stated that he would not discuss the code as he was not able to talk about his ruling, but that he would confirm any correct attempt to break it.

However, it was later learned that the judge had given a series of email hints about the code, which was finally announced as cracked on 28 April 2006, by Daniel Tench, a lawyer and media journalist for The Guardian newspaper.[6] The plain text reads: “Smithy Code. Jackie Fisher, who are you? Dreadnought.” This related to the subject of one of Smith’s personal interests, Admiral Lord (John) Fisher, who was responsible for the design of the battleship HMS Dreadnought. The ship was launched in February 1906, roughly 100 years before the start of the trial.

In the appeal to the Court of Appeal from the judge’s decision in the “The Da Vinci Code” case, the Court of Appeal said that the judge “was prompted by the extensive use in [The Da Vinci Code] of codes, and no doubt by his own interest in such things, to incorporate a coded message in his judgment, on which nothing turns. The judgment is not easy to read or to understand. It might have been preferable for him to have allowed himself more time for the preparation, checking and revision of the judgment.”[7]

[edit] The Addleshaw Goddard matter – the reprimand by the Lord Chief Justice

Smith spent some months in communication with London solicitor’s firm, Addleshaw Goddard relating to the possibility of employment by them. Those discussions came to nothing and there was considerable email correspondence as evidence of his disappointment. But in July 2007, about a month after the conclusion of those negotiations, the judge refused to stand down from hearing a heavily contested case (Howell v Lees Millais & Others) involving a partner in the same firm in his capacity as a trustee. On appeal from that decision, the Court of Appeal criticised the judge for his attitude and behaviour during the hearing when he was asked to step down and allowed the appeal, with the effect of removing him from the case.

In its unanimous judgments of 4 July 2007, the Court of Appeal described the judge’s behaviour in part as “intemperate” and “somewhat extraordinary”.[8] In one paragraph of his judgment, Lord Justice Judge said:

“It is the conduct of the hearing which underlines that the judge had become too personally involved in the decision he was being asked to make to guarantee the necessary judicial objectivity which would be required in the trustee proceedings. I identify three particular features. First, the witness who supported the application was in effect cross-examined by the judge in something of the style of an advocate instructed to oppose the application. Second, the submission by counsel for the applicant that the judge had given evidence was in the circumstances unsurprising, and the concerns he expressed on this topic were validly made. Finally, the judge impugned the good faith of the application, a conclusion repeated in the strongest terms in his judgment when there is no shred of evidence to suggest some ulterior or improper motive behind the application.”

In a concluding comment on the way in which the judge behaved, Lord Justice Judge said: ‘In these circumstances it is unfortunate to have to record that, in my judgment, the conduct of the hearing itself demonstrated not only that the application to the judge to recuse himself was rightly made, but that it should have been granted. ‘

The judge himself then issued a press release on the topic.[9] By 13 July 2007, Joshua Rozenberg, a well known legal journalist, was suggesting in the Daily Telegraph that it was time for the judge to stand down.[10]

On 16 July 2007, it was announced in a press release from the Judicial Communications Office that the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers had referred the judge’s behaviour in the case to the independent Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC). Frances Gibb embarked on speculation as to whether the judge should stay in office in The Times on 18 July[11] and Rozenberg returned to the point on 19 July.[12] Both journalists mentioned the question of the judge’s health, but without going into detail.

The Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor may refer for investigation by the OJC any matter where the conduct of a judicial office holder may warrant disciplinary proceedings. They may make this referral irrespective of whether there have been any complaints made by others. The Office for Judicial Complaints is obliged to consider the matter in accordance with the relevant statutory regulations.[13]

On 18 April 2008 it was announced in the following terms that the OJC had found that misconduct had been established against the judge.

Following investigation under the Judicial Discipline Regulations 2006, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have carefully considered the Court of Appeal’s comments on the conduct of Mr Justice Peter Smith in the case of Howell and others v Lees-Millais and others and have concluded that the conduct in question amounted to misconduct.

As a result, the Lord Chief Justice has issued a reprimand to the judge.

The Lord Chief Justice has said: “I consider that a firm line has now been drawn under this matter. Both I and the Lord Chancellor value the services of Mr Justice Peter Smith and he has my full confidence.”

No statement was made by the judge.

Candy trial

Smith’s was replaced as judge at the last minute in the case between the Qatari royal family and Christian Candy, a property developer. Smith’s decisions in the pre-trial hearings were said to have upset the Qataris and he was replaced for the trial by Mr Justice Vos.