thomascook.com

[super-whoissuper-whois is verified member.]

Not often one sees domain names in the news:
https://news.sky.com/story/thomas-cook-liquidator-fails-to-click-on-tui-offer-11849140

 

[ian]

The vultures are circling. Makes sense for Thomson to try and buy the domain though, the confusion between the brands goes back as long as they do and has always been a thing.

 

[diablo]

I once offered to buy a domain name from a liquidator, but the offer was rejected. I increased my offer, but it too was rejected. Months later, with the company still in liquidation, the domain name dropped.

 

[domain-names]

I once offered to buy a domain name from a liquidator, but the offer was rejected. I increased my offer, but it too was rejected. Months later, with the company still in liquidation, the domain name dropped.

Us too, made a decent offer but rejected and dropped a few months later.

 

[ian]

Bought quite a few domains via liquidators, though not for a couple of years, and there always seemed to be a default "offer must be more than £700 to make it worth the paperwork".

 

[domain-names]

Liquidation is one of those weird 'industries' where it's not as simple as taking low ball offers because they need every penny they can. There's a lot more to it as they have to try and sell for the best fair value possible so that creditors get the best payback. People incorrectly assume that if a company is in liquidation, it's automatically a way to get things for extremely cheap.

This does result in odd situations sometimes where the creditors may actually lose out. Liquidators can't simply go "Let's sell this £50,000 domain for £1,000 because that's the highest offer we've had", even though it will drop in 5 months if we don't sell it. Well, technically they can... but it would lead to possible investigations, them personally be held liable for underselling asset's etc.

It can be very odd but logically it makes sense. It prevents a lot of 'legal' fraud, stripping of assets etc.

We didn't try to get anything cheap, our offer for the particular domain name was £10k.

if an individual can be held liable for selling assets cheaply, surely then can also be held liable for losing a valuable asset for the sake of £4.50.

It wouldn't make any sense to the creditors of the company that don't get paid.

 

[diablo]

Liquidation is one of those weird 'industries' where it's not as simple as taking low ball offers because they need every penny they can. There's a lot more to it as they have to try and sell for the best fair value possible so that creditors get the best payback. People incorrectly assume that if a company is in liquidation, it's automatically a way to get things for extremely cheap.

This does result in odd situations sometimes where the creditors may actually lose out. Liquidators can't simply go "Let's sell this £50,000 domain for £1,000 because that's the highest offer we've had", even though it will drop in 5 months if we don't sell it. Well, technically they can... but it would lead to possible investigations, them personally be held liable for underselling asset's etc.

It can be very odd but logically it makes sense. It prevents a lot of 'legal' fraud, stripping of assets etc.

Both my offers were five figure offers.

Liquidators have a duty to realise a company's assets so that creditors and hareholders can be repaid. They are failing in that duty by allowing valuable assets to be lost when offers are on the table. Personally, I believe this happens because the liquidators in question have no idea about domain names and are not in the loop as regards renewals.

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

Back in the olden days of the internet, I was within hours of buying a "real" PR9 domain from a bankrupt company's liquidators in the US. (If you don't know, a PR9 domain would have had millions of legitimate incoming links from trusted sites all over the web.) But this was before Paypal was in widespread use, and I couldn't find any way to get the money from Japan to their US account in time. Despite several calls and faxes (yes, they were a thing) they ultimately refused to wait 24 hours for me to clear payment on my higher offer, and sold it at a loss to them of over US$10,000.

 

[pugyrob]

Bought many at liquidation and missed many. More backhanded float around with liquidators than at Wimbledon. Plus on the whole they have not got a clue about domains or where they are held.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Liquidators are, in general, scum. Such a corrupt business, they make estate agents look like saints. They wield too much power and rarely have to explain their actions. Often underselling assets (to their pals), their loyalty lies with the entity that employed them...so long as they and that entity gets their cut.