The two resolutions -- verifying him as a suitable corporate officer, versus floating him a personal 11k loan -- are so widely different, I can't even begin to fathom what your point is?
At this point I have nothing to say that jacquesm and vessenes haven't already said, so I'll spare you the long-winded response and just say this doesn't look like Apple's problem.
Since Apple isn't at fault for the original mixup, they have no responsibility to help resolve their outstanding debt in a reasonably timely manner? It has been months.
So what I'm getting from this conversation is that you don't own a business, or if you do, you don't invoice. Months is a blink of an eye in receivables/payables terms. Here's a startup lesson for you: if you deal with big companies, factor in enough buffer to survive 6-9 months before getting paid, even when you do things by the book.
I manage a business, and we do invoice. Like any other business, our customers pay late. What I don't have is individuals who owe us money stonewalling our requests for communication/resolution on a late invoice.
When a Net-30 client takes 6 months to pay you on your 3rd project, they are being worse than Apple: they know how to pay you, they have people assigned to paying you, the process has already worked in the past, and they're simply not paying you.
Here Apple is dealing with someone who basically invented a fictitious company in a different country (! ! !) and is now trying to collect on payables. What do you expect to have happen? I actually believe vessenes --- he may just never get paid. I wish him the best.
Here Apple is dealing with someone who basically invented a fictitious company in a different country (! ! !) and is now trying to collect on payables. What do you expect to have happen? I actually believe vessenes --- he may just never get paid. I wish him the best.
I'm curious -- what reporting to the government/legal paperwork do you see Apple as doing that makes the payout legally more difficult due to the use of a fictitious name?
In the U.S., using a fictitious name is incredibly simple -- is it really that much more complicated in the U.K.? Why is this suddenly an "oh my god" situation?
What is possibly preventing Apple from changing their records to use his personal name?
I think you are missing an absolutely crucial point here, Apple already tried paying him, several times now.
The reason it didn't work is because the bank did not want to accept the payment because they would be in violation of the law on money laundering if they did.
I think you are missing an absolutely crucial point here, Apple already tried paying him, several times now.
With the wrong name (ie, not the name he entered on the bank account form). Which was the original problem.
Is Apple reporting the payment to the tax service? What's to prevent Apple from switching the account to a personal one, or transferring it to an additional legal entity? Why are they taking many months to find any resolution?
