I think it's important that the actual facts surrounding this 'firesale' are put in the public domain, as it would appear this really is not a straightforward deal - not when hundreds have lost pensions, and over 140 people are not even receiving redundancy pay - let alone PILON. Some serious questions should be asked!!!!!

Please see: http://www.ri5.co.uk/site/news/article/penna-acquires-barkers-from-administrator/_page=14 and the current forum which has attracted over 200 posts from Ex-employees, which I think is both newsworthyand worthy of putting in the HR arena for your views.

 Indeed, this could potentially, if the comments on Ri5 from those who lost their jobs turn out to be fact, be the biggest scandal to hit recruitment advertising for many a moon. To promise redundancy then three days later put yourself into administration to avoid paying it is outrageous in any climate, let alone the current economic state we are in.

I have read the Ri5 posts and spoken to people involved in the deal as well as the fallout. I am left scratching my head on Penna's claims that in 2 weeks of negotiation with £8.6 million in cash being handed over, not a single Penna representative asked about or was involved in any way in any of the redundancy decisions. Even the 60 or 70 extra redundancies which apparently were decided upon and took place in the few days between Penna winning the bidding process and the deal paperwork being completed. It beggars belief. Think about it. On one hand they knew about the plan from day one. On the other they are adamant they had no involvement or influence over it in any shape or form. Quite. In fact the plan they are referring to was a dramatic restructuring plan aimed at a new fundraising exercise and not a sale - so why it was simply allowed to proceed when a buyer had been found raises questions. I read some of the Penna statements and it seemed to me that Penna is distancing itself from the conduct of Senior Barkers management whose alleged actions in misleading the staff with the intention of deliberately and knowingly to dumping their liability into the liquidated company to leave them unpaid and (in many cases) without job or pension, crosses not just a moral line, but one or two legal ones. I suppose if someone eventually initiates civil or criminal legal action against individual Directors of Barkers, then Penna would not want to find themselves identified as active supporters of those actions and tactics employed by the Barkers people - lest they and their reputation gets caught in the crossfire.