22.08.2012

Last gasp from Rowe?

Brand 1 Solutions, the latest incarnation of Lee Rowe’s P.S.S/Primerve Solutions operations looks set for liquidation.

A winding up petition, the third in just over a year, was presented in June and looks to have been approved on August 2nd and actioned on Tuesday forcing a compulsory liquidation.

The move leaves a number of creditors unpaid, the latest accounts dated January 2011 show a negative working capital of £152,000 with a negative net worth of £4,000, but since then numerous bad debts have been recorded this year the latest as recent as June.

Rumours earlier this year indicated that Rowe had relocated to the USA, although we have not been able to confirm that.

With the liquidation of Brand 1 all but one of Rowes companies - Proffessional Specialist Services Ltd –have been closed they are
- Labour Supply Ltd -Dissolved
- Primeserve Solutions Ltd -Dissolved
- P.S.S. (LT) Ltd - In Liquidation
- PSS (Lifting) Ltd -In Liquidation
- Brand 1 Solutions Ltd -Winding Up Petition/Liquidation

Click here to see the most recent reports on these companies Or put Lee Rowe in the news search box

Vertikal Comment

How or why anyone would have extended credit to Brand 1 when any credit check of any kind would have quickly yielded such a clear indication not to do so, is beyond me.

When talking to insolvency practitioners many of them state quite openly that they have no concern or sympathy for regular creditors, saying that “they took the decision and the risk to extend the credit so it’s their fault that they have now lost it”.

This is a grossly distorted view of most companies that extend credit sensibly and manage it cautiously. However while I hate to say it - giving credit to the above companies in the past two years does beggar belief and in these cases any liquidator making such a statement would have to be agreed with .

Finally there should be a law that prevents individuals who have had three business failures in which creditors have lost money from being associated in any way with running owning or controlling a business, for at least 10 years. Even if in each case the directors were shown to have behaved completely legally and been ‘above board’. So many failures suggests that either the person is not competent to run or be involved in the management of a business or they are crooked.