1 week ago


Michelle Young - legal strategy analysis

) David Ingram and

) David Ingram and Richard Hicken, were never a party to those proceedings. c) Michelle Young, had never had any Order/s, pronounced in court, in favour, of the two individuals, presenting themselves, as petitioners. d) As the petition is based, on an alleged Court Order, it is not valid, as it is not in the prescribed form 6.9, and NOT 6.7 as required, under section 268 1(a or b) of the Insolvency Act. 4) Is there any documentary evidence to support point 3 ?

“The above mentioned debt is for a liquidated sum, payable immediately, and the debtor appears to be unable to pay it”. a)The imposter petitioners, David Ingram and Richard Hicken, did not supply any evidence, in support of the statement. b) The statement that the respondent is UNABLE TO PAY was made with the intent, to obtain a Bankruptcy Order, to deprive the victim, Michelle Young of her freedom and liberty. c) Allowing them to take multi million pounds, under the false authority of the Court. 5) Paragraph 4 in the petition stated that the debt is for a liquidated sum payable immediately and the debtor appears to be unable to pay. Is that a true statement?

Read more... - The Legal 500
IV. Estonia - Intercentar
VIII. Poland - Intercentar
Insolvency Bankruptcy -
II. Croatia - Intercentar
Voluntary Petition
Voluntary Petition - Trustee Services
Voluntary Petition - Trustee Services
Chapter 15 Bankruptcy Strategies - Gowlings
Part 1: Bankruptcy - FLAC
Momentum Brochure
The Law of Georgia on Insolvency Proceedings