Conclusion for british rail after it was privatised?
919179
It was the second worst think that was ever done in the history of railways. (The worst was Dr.Richard Beeching). Services after privatisation are worst and prices have gone through the roof for travel. Plus we have lost most of the classics such as class 37,s and class 47,s. All you see now are class 91,s and class 66,s.
846595
http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/layer?topicId=1074410825
498145
It can be developed with few pvt funds but cant be privatised, the importance of passengers may be lost.
668555
Probably not.\n\nSound like old bonds -- I don't think the CSRR is still around.\n\nOld bond certificates really only have neusmatic value. They are not worth anything on the market.
790323
Visit - www.businesslink.gov.uk\n\nShould be able to find what you're looking for there.
798947
I suggest you look at this site, and draw your own conclusion,\nhttp://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/index.htm\nHappy reading
859241
Companies house says they have been dissolved! \nhttp://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/217622bef3fc9b6cb296ea01b4fc9899/compdetails
948195
Go to www.ft.com, (England, Financial times)\n\nThere is an archive section there for you to go back and\ncheck this sort of stuff
184742
I don't think they went bankrupt.  They were bought by First Energy.\n\nGPU made a fatal error in anticipating the effect of dregulation of the utility business.
991686
Sell off all its Gold Bullion , reduce Its Oil Consumption and develop transportation system like that  which exists in Britain
956711
The demise of the "single economic unit" theory (English law)\n\nIt is an axiomatic principle of English company law that a company is an entity separate and distinct from its members, who are only liable to the extent that they have contributed to the company's capital: Salomon v Salomon [1898]. The effect of this rule is that the individual subsidiaries within a conglomerate will be treated as separate entities and the parent cannot be made liable for the subsidiaries debts on insolvency. Furthermore, it can create subsidiaries with inadequate capitalisation and secure loans to the subsidiaries with fixed charges over their assets, despite the fact that this is "not necessarily the most honest way of trading"; see The Coral Rose (No 1.) [1991], per Staughton LJ.\n\nAlthough the secondary literature refers to different means of "lifting" or "piercing" the veil (see Ottolenghi (1959)), judicial dicta supporting the view that the rule in Salomon is subject to exceptions are thin on the ground. Lord Denning MR adumbrated the theory of the "single economic unit" theory in DHN Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets [1976], but this has largely been repudiated. In Woolfson v Strathclyde BC [1976], the House of Lords held that it was a decision to be confined to its facts (the question in DHN had been whether the subsidiary of the plaintiff, the former owning the premises on which the parent carried out its business, could receive compensation for loss of business under a compulsory purchase order notwithstanding that under the rule in Salomon, it was the parent and not the subsidiary that had lost the business). Likewise, in Bank of Tokyo v. Karoon [1987] (PC), Lord Goff, who had agreed with Lord Denning in DHN, held that the legal conception of the corporate structure was entirely distinct from the economic realities.\n\nThe "single economic unit" theory was likewise rejected by the CA in Adams v Cape Industries [1990], where Slade LJ held that cases where the rule in Salomon had been circumvented were merely instances where. The view expressed at first instance by HHJ Southwell QC in Creasey v. Breachwood [1992] that English law "definitely" recognised the principle that the corporate veil could be lifted was described as a heresy by Hobhouse LJ in Ord v Bellhaven [1998], and these doubts were shared by Moritt V-C in Trustor v. Smallbone (No. 3) [2001]: the corporate veil cannot be lifted merely because justice requires it.
13128
It was owned by Harry Bailey.  You can read more about it at the link below.
699990
Without more specifics, it could be a statutory consolidation as well.\n\nBut it sounds as though he is refering to a horizontal merger.
796222
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/cp?s=%5EFTSE
819296
One of the previous clothing suppliers that went into liquidation was Bairdswear, in Telford. This was into liquidation, I think in the mid 1990's
853111
I'd suggest speaking to a stockbroker about costs etc, and the returns would depend on the performance of the company.  I think they're about £4 a share just now, and they performed very well last year.  I've thought about it too because Tesco seem to be taking over the world just now...!
445587
According to the official history on the club webpage:\n\nIn 1986, "a last day defeat at Shrewsbury sees Boro relegated to Division Three and the club goes into liquidation in July, suffering from massive debts.  A consortium consisting of ICI, Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, Bulkhaul, and Henry Moszkowicz saves the club and forms Middlesbrough Football Club and Athletic Company (1986) Ltd."