Comments on: Is Murdoch free to destroy tabloid’s records?

By: netsettler

netsettler — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:39:20 +0000

It would seem odd if there could be a liability against the person buying the company for legal breaches done by the previous owner. I would assume they were insulated from that and if not the law seems unjust.

It would be the ultimate in irony if the liquidator thought potentially incriminating records had tabloid value and sold them to another tabloid in order to maximize the value of its assets.

By: MegmacPR

MegmacPR — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 00:37:39 +0000

I think Alison is confusing closing a company with going bankrupt. News International (the parent company) doesn’t have to liquidate anything. News of the World is being closed down by choice (or should I say scandal), not debt. News International has more than enough money (and insurance) to cover paying any outstanding debts, and what I’m sure will be a fairly massive severance tab. As to whether or not they have the right to destroy records…not sure. Certainly they would have to keep tax records, but beyond that I don’t know what corporate requirements are. I would think willfully destroying records that were pertinent to an on-going investigation would be considered obstruction, which is a crime.

By: nrand

nrand — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 18:59:32 +0000

The mind purely boggles to consider that the ‘obligations’ of a liquidator would come before the law.

By: cylon1

cylon1 — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 18:53:10 +0000

I would just like to say that police are investigating the alleged deletion of emails by a News International executive. This story is not as far fetched as you might think.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul /08/phone-hacking-emails-news-internati onal

By: MarkSG

MarkSG — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 17:24:18 +0000

GRaHan is absolutely right. This really has to be one of the most thoughtless and uninformed articles I’ve yet read about the News of the World scandal. If that’s representative of the level of journalism at Reuters then I think I’d prefer Rebekah Brooks

By: GRaHan

GRaHan — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 10:56:09 +0000

Having traded with NI’s titles over the last decade, I can confirm efctony comment. NGN is the Ltd company that NI trades the titles/brands The Sun and News of the World through, and given The Sun is not closing down, there should be no administrator appointed.
On a side note in the UK any company can shut a brand at any time and even the legal entity enter voluntary administration/receivership, even when profitable and cash rich. Owners do exactly this to release cash in a limited company.
This opinion from “Mr Media” is the normal sort of knee jerk sensationalist rubbish that gets quoted when “experts” are rung up/emailed/messaged by journo’s for opinion on fast moving stories, and should be taken for what it is, 5 min phone call to raise an “experts” profile.
The bigger story here is the fact that all of this really seems to have been very carefully managed to impact the consultation Jeremy Hunt (Culture Secretary) was closing today. This level of day on day story release control is similar to how the Telegraph managed the expenses scandal so don’t be surprised if there are further file(s) sat with other media channels to keep the story going.

By: Abe.Froman

Abe.Froman — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 10:19:00 +0000

News Corp is comprised of hundreds of offshore entities, all offering secrecy or delay while the company flees and the government waits for cooperation. The documents at NOTW are the tip of the iceberg, which by the way, happens to be out of reach for British inquiries.

By: MrTinkles

MrTinkles — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:13:07 +0000

And anyway…surely they aren’t going bankrupt/into receivership/administration…they are just shutting down. Wouldn’t they have to demonstrate they were in financial trouble…which they weren’t in any way!!! Even if they were worried about loss of advertising etc. – that hasn’t kicked in yet and I’m pretty sure you can’t go bankrupt “in advance” – just in case! Otherwise other businesses would have done so much earlier!!!

By: LuminEther

LuminEther — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 07:56:40 +0000

If you’re trying to restrict disclosure of documents, the last thing you’d do is put the Co. in liquidation and transfer control of the disclosure process from the execs to a third party that you don’t completely control, the liquidator. Yes… there is a hypothetical possibility that a liquidator may decide to save the costs of storage, but that would be a pretty perverse decision in a situation like this. No reputable liquidator would do that – and why would NI nominate a bent liquidator while trying to improve their fit and proper person status? Would be a hopeless strategy IMO.

By: reveldor

reveldor — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:09:33 +0000

Rebekah Brooks keeps her job while 200 journalists and god knows how many other staff lose theirs. This is a desperate ploy by desperate people. Rebekah holds all the cards. If she goes down, others go down too. James knows this. Rupert knows this. She has them both by the shorts.