Uthopia

I must say the thought had crossed my mind that it was a bit odd to be telling everyone you own one of the world's most valuable horses when you have been declared bankrupt.
 
One of Mr Harrisons companys in administration. Shows lack of research in H&H. They should dig a little further.
 
Last edited:
Could get very messy, I wonder if he'll end up like the Eurocommerse stallions.at the end of the day Carl has said all along that Sacha is a part owner so it's difficult to retract that comment. If as they now say he was sold to an anonymous party, the debt company will want to know who to and how much he was sold for. If at the time she was declared bankrupt they will want this money back.
 
Or who purchased the horse in the first place. After all with a horse like that there will be a cash audit trail as he wouldn't have been cheap to purchase in the first place.
 
Well, Stewart and Harrison presumably owned the horse originally as listed with the FEI, and there would have been no issue at that point if they were both liquid. The dodgy bit is the horse being transferred solely to his name and then Stewart popping up again after her bankruptcy was resolved. You can see why they think she may have tried to hide assets!

The problem re Carl realising his investment is that he MAY not have had the right to purchase the horse in the first place. I'm sure their argument will be Stewart sold him to raise cash and then reinvested when her problems got sorted but it does look sticky.

Poor Carl, he wouldn't be the first rider to get into trouble trying to keep the ride on a good horse. :(
 
TarrSteps said:
Well, Stewart and Harrison presumably owned the horse originally as listed with the FEI, and there would have been no issue at that point if they were both liquid. The dodgy bit is the horse being transferred solely to his name and then Stewart popping up again after her bankruptcy was resolved. You can see why they think she may have tried to hide assets!

The problem re Carl realising his investment is that he MAY not have had the right to purchase the horse in the first place. I'm sure their argument will be Stewart sold him to raise cash and then reinvested when her problems got sorted but it does look sticky.

Poor Carl, he wouldn't be the first rider to get into trouble trying to keep the ride on a good horse. :(
Click to expand...

Agree with above, without knowing all the details it appears at face value as though ownership of the horse was transferred conveniently to avoid creditors. Always seems particularly sad when its a living, breathing animal involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top