Under the Insolvency Act 1986 section 212,[171] a liquidator or administrator can bring a claim for summary judgment in the company's name to vindicate any breach of duty by a director owed to the company. This means the directors' duties found in the Companies Act 2006 sections 171 to 177, and in particular a director's duty to act within her powers, her duty of care and duty to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest. "Director" in this sense is given a broad scope and includes de jure directors, who are formally appointed, de facto directors who assume the role of a director without formal appointment, and shadow directors, under whose directors the official directors are accustomed to act.[172] The candidates for de facto or shadow directors are usually banks who become involved in company management to protect their lending, parent companies, or people who attempt to rescue a company (other than insolvency practitioners). In Re Paycheck Services 3 Ltd a majority of the Supreme Court held that acting as a director of a corporate director cannot make someone a de facto director unless they voluntarily assume responsibility for a subsidiary company.[173] Similarly to be shadow director, according to Millett J in Re Hydrodam (Corby) Ltd[174] it is not enough to simply be on the board of a parent company.
As an emphasis to the standard codified list of duties, and now reflected in the Companies Act 2006 section 172(4), at common law the duty of directors to pay regard to the interests of creditors increases as a company approaches an insolvent state. While ordinarily, a director's duty is to promote the company's success for the members' benefit,[175] in the vicinity of insolvency a director's actions affect the financial interests of the creditor body the greatest.[176]
Because the misfeasance provision reflects causes of action vested in the company, any money recovered under it is held so that it will go to pay off creditors in their ordinary order of priority. In Re Anglo-Austrian Printing & Publishing Union[177] this meant that a liquidator who had successfully sued directors for £7000 had to give up the funds to a group of debenture holders, who had not yet been paid in full, so there is no discretion to apply the assets in favour of unsecured creditors. A potential benefit is that because the causes of action are vested in the company, they may be assigned to third parties, who may prefer to take the risk and reward of pursuing litigation over the liquidator or administrator.[178] These features are the reverse for money recovered through the statutory based causes of action of fraudulent and wrongful trading.
Unlawful trading
Selasa, 17 Desember 2013
interest. "Director" in this sense is given a broad scope and includes de jure directors, who are formally appointed, de facto directors who assume the role of a director without formal appointment, and sha
Director duty cases
See also: UK company law, Directors' duties in the United Kingdom, Directors' duties, Misfeasance, and CDDA 1986
Under the Insolvency Act 1986 section 212,[171] a liquidator or administrator can bring a claim for summary judgment in the company's name to vindicate any breach of duty by a director owed to the company. This means the directors' duties found in the Companies Act 2006 sections 171 to 177, and in particular a director's duty to act within her powers, her duty of care and duty to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest. "Director" in this sense is given a broad scope and includes de jure directors, who are formally appointed, de facto directors who assume the role of a director without formal appointment, and shadow directors, under whose directors the official directors are accustomed to act.[172] The candidates for de facto or shadow directors are usually banks who become involved in company management to protect their lending, parent companies, or people who attempt to rescue a company (other than insolvency practitioners). In Re Paycheck Services 3 Ltd a majority of the Supreme Court held that acting as a director of a corporate director cannot make someone a de facto director unless they voluntarily assume responsibility for a subsidiary company.[173] Similarly to be shadow director, according to Millett J in Re Hydrodam (Corby) Ltd[174] it is not enough to simply be on the board of a parent company.
See also: UK company law, Directors' duties in the United Kingdom, Directors' duties, Misfeasance, and CDDA 1986
Under the Insolvency Act 1986 section 212,[171] a liquidator or administrator can bring a claim for summary judgment in the company's name to vindicate any breach of duty by a director owed to the company. This means the directors' duties found in the Companies Act 2006 sections 171 to 177, and in particular a director's duty to act within her powers, her duty of care and duty to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest. "Director" in this sense is given a broad scope and includes de jure directors, who are formally appointed, de facto directors who assume the role of a director without formal appointment, and shadow directors, under whose directors the official directors are accustomed to act.[172] The candidates for de facto or shadow directors are usually banks who become involved in company management to protect their lending, parent companies, or people who attempt to rescue a company (other than insolvency practitioners). In Re Paycheck Services 3 Ltd a majority of the Supreme Court held that acting as a director of a corporate director cannot make someone a de facto director unless they voluntarily assume responsibility for a subsidiary company.[173] Similarly to be shadow director, according to Millett J in Re Hydrodam (Corby) Ltd[174] it is not enough to simply be on the board of a parent company.
was far too long. This only rescinds the charge, and not the debt itself, which remains in effect as before but the creditor becomes unsecured.[166] Banks operating accounts for companies in overdraft hav
The Insolvency Act 1986 section 238 only catches depletion of a company's total assets, rather than simply preferring one creditor at the expense of others.[164] This happens through the creation of security interests, and they may also be unwound on three limited grounds. First, under section 245, any floating charge created up to one year before the onset of insolvency is avoidable at the company's instance if new money was not advanced to the company in return. So a company cannot grant a floating charge to a creditor to secure past advances made by that creditor, unless given at least "at the same time". In Re Shoe Lace Ltd[165] Hoffmann J held that £350,000 advanced in April and May was not close enough to a floating charge created in July to be considered "at the same time". The floating charge could not secure those amounts. Because the context of the legislation was a business one, and in view of the fact that floating charges can be registered up to 21 days after their creation, a few months was far too long. This only rescinds the charge, and not the debt itself, which remains in effect as before but the creditor becomes unsecured.[166] Banks operating accounts for companies in overdraft have an advantage in this respect. Re Yeovil Glove Co Ltd[167] held that if the overall level of debt remains the same, before and after a floating charge is created, and if money turns over by payments of the company in and withdrawals out, the bank's continued extension of credit will continually "harden" their floating charge. Although the Yeovil Glove company was always indebted to the bank before a floating charge was created, and was indebted at the point of insolvency, because it had deposited and withdrawn a greater amount, the bank's floating charge was considered secure.[168]
Apart from floating charges, a second and general ground for avoiding preferences is found under section 239. This avoids preferences that entail a "desire to prefer" one creditor over another. This test is hard to fulfil. In Re MC Bacon Ltd, a company gave a floating charge to Natwest bank in return for a continued overdraft as its business declined. Millett J held the company had not desired to prefer the bank. It had no special affection for its bank, and only agreed to the charge to prolong survival of the business.[169] By contrast, in Re Agriplant Services Ltd[170] Jonathan Parker J held it was an unlawful preference for Agriplant to pay £20,000 due on a leasing contract for earth moving equipment to a company. This was mainly because Agriplant's major shareholder Mr Sagar, had guaranteed that Agriplant's liability, and so repayment absolved Mr Sagar's liabilities above other creditors. Third and finally, CA 2006 section 874 stipulates that any charge, including a floating charge, that is not registered is considered void. This simple provision encourages a transparency of security interests, at least if creditors are in a position to check the register.
Directors' duties
Selasa, 22 Oktober 2013
ons at an undervalue may be avoided regardless of their purpose, but only up to two years before the onset of insolvency.[160] For example, in Phillips v Brewin Dolphin Bell Lawrie Ltd[161]
Voidable transaction cases
Main articles: Fraudulent conveyance, Undervalue transaction, Voidable preference, Voidable floating charge, and Unjust enrichment
Since the Fraudulent Conveyances Act 1571, transactions entered into by a bankrupt have been voidable if they would result in assets otherwise available to creditors becoming unduly depleted or particular creditors becoming unjustly enriched.[158] Initially transactions made only with the intention of depriving creditors of assets, or perverting the priorities for order of distribution were vulnerable, while the modern approach of the Insolvency Act 1986 contains more provisions that unwind transactions simply because their effect is deprivation of assets available to creditors. Reminiscent of the 1571 Act, under the Insolvency Act 1986 section 423, a company may recover assets if they were paid away for "significantly less than the value" of the thing, and this was done "for the purpose of" prejudicing other creditors' interests. In Arbuthnot Leasing International Ltd v Havelet Leasing Ltd (No 2)[159] Scott J held that the motive of the company or its directors was irrelevant, so that even though Havelet Leasing Ltd's lawyers had advised (quite wrongly) that their scheme of starting another company and transferring assets to it would be lawful, because the scheme's purpose was to put the assets out of other creditors' reach it breached section 423.
The rule in section 423 applies at any time before insolvency and requires proof of intention to prejudice other creditors, but other provisions have limits set before the date of winding up and require no proof of bad intent. Under section 238, transactions at an undervalue may be avoided regardless of their purpose, but only up to two years before the onset of insolvency.[160] For example, in Phillips v Brewin Dolphin Bell Lawrie Ltd[161] the liquidators of an insolvent company, AJ Bekhor Ltd, claimed rescind the transfer of assets to a subsidiary, whose shares were then purchased by the investment management house Brewin Dolphin for £1. The only other consideration given by Brewin Dolphin was the promise to carry out a lease agreement for computers, which itself was likely to be unwound and therefore worthless. The House of Lords held that the total package of connected transactions could be taken into account to decide whether a transaction was undervalued or not, and held that this one was.
Under IA 1986 section 127 operates to declare every transaction void entered after the presentation of a winding up petition unless it has the approval of the court. In Re Gray’s Inn Construction Co Ltd[162] Buckley LJ held that courts would habitually approve all contracts that were plainly beneficial to a company entered into in good faith and the ordinary course of business. The predominant purpose of the provision is to ensure unsecured creditors are not prejudiced, and the company's assets are not unduly depleted. In this case, however, because a host of transactions honoured by the company's bank, that was in overdraft, between the presentation and the winding up petition being granted meant unprofitable trading, the deals were declared void.[163]
Voidable preferences
Main articles: Fraudulent conveyance, Undervalue transaction, Voidable preference, Voidable floating charge, and Unjust enrichment
Since the Fraudulent Conveyances Act 1571, transactions entered into by a bankrupt have been voidable if they would result in assets otherwise available to creditors becoming unduly depleted or particular creditors becoming unjustly enriched.[158] Initially transactions made only with the intention of depriving creditors of assets, or perverting the priorities for order of distribution were vulnerable, while the modern approach of the Insolvency Act 1986 contains more provisions that unwind transactions simply because their effect is deprivation of assets available to creditors. Reminiscent of the 1571 Act, under the Insolvency Act 1986 section 423, a company may recover assets if they were paid away for "significantly less than the value" of the thing, and this was done "for the purpose of" prejudicing other creditors' interests. In Arbuthnot Leasing International Ltd v Havelet Leasing Ltd (No 2)[159] Scott J held that the motive of the company or its directors was irrelevant, so that even though Havelet Leasing Ltd's lawyers had advised (quite wrongly) that their scheme of starting another company and transferring assets to it would be lawful, because the scheme's purpose was to put the assets out of other creditors' reach it breached section 423.
The rule in section 423 applies at any time before insolvency and requires proof of intention to prejudice other creditors, but other provisions have limits set before the date of winding up and require no proof of bad intent. Under section 238, transactions at an undervalue may be avoided regardless of their purpose, but only up to two years before the onset of insolvency.[160] For example, in Phillips v Brewin Dolphin Bell Lawrie Ltd[161] the liquidators of an insolvent company, AJ Bekhor Ltd, claimed rescind the transfer of assets to a subsidiary, whose shares were then purchased by the investment management house Brewin Dolphin for £1. The only other consideration given by Brewin Dolphin was the promise to carry out a lease agreement for computers, which itself was likely to be unwound and therefore worthless. The House of Lords held that the total package of connected transactions could be taken into account to decide whether a transaction was undervalued or not, and held that this one was.
Under IA 1986 section 127 operates to declare every transaction void entered after the presentation of a winding up petition unless it has the approval of the court. In Re Gray’s Inn Construction Co Ltd[162] Buckley LJ held that courts would habitually approve all contracts that were plainly beneficial to a company entered into in good faith and the ordinary course of business. The predominant purpose of the provision is to ensure unsecured creditors are not prejudiced, and the company's assets are not unduly depleted. In this case, however, because a host of transactions honoured by the company's bank, that was in overdraft, between the presentation and the winding up petition being granted meant unprofitable trading, the deals were declared void.[163]
Voidable preferences
Selasa, 15 Oktober 2013
[164] This happens through the creation of security interests, and they may also be unwound on three limited grounds. First, under section 245, any floating charge created up to one year before the on
Since the Fraudulent Conveyances Act 1571, transactions entered into by a bankrupt have been voidable if they would result in assets otherwise available to creditors becoming unduly depleted or particular creditors becoming unjustly enriched.[158] Initially transactions made only with the intention of depriving creditors of assets, or perverting the priorities for order of distribution were vulnerable, while the modern approach of the Insolvency Act 1986 contains more provisions that unwind transactions simply because their effect is deprivation of assets available to creditors. Reminiscent of the 1571 Act, under the Insolvency Act 1986 section 423, a company may recover assets if they were paid away for "significantly less than the value" of the thing, and this was done "for the purpose of" prejudicing other creditors' interests. In Arbuthnot Leasing International Ltd v Havelet Leasing Ltd (No 2)[159] Scott J held that the motive of the company or its directors was irrelevant, so that even though Havelet Leasing Ltd's lawyers had advised (quite wrongly) that their scheme of starting another company and transferring assets to it would be lawful, because the scheme's purpose was to put the assets out of other creditors' reach it breached section 423.
The rule in section 423 applies at any time before insolvency and requires proof of intention to prejudice other creditors, but other provisions have limits set before the date of winding up and require no proof of bad intent. Under section 238, transactions at an undervalue may be avoided regardless of their purpose, but only up to two years before the onset of insolvency.[160] For example, in Phillips v Brewin Dolphin Bell Lawrie Ltd[161] the liquidators of an insolvent company, AJ Bekhor Ltd, claimed rescind the transfer of assets to a subsidiary, whose shares were then purchased by the investment management house Brewin Dolphin for £1. The only other consideration given by Brewin Dolphin was the promise to carry out a lease agreement for computers, which itself was likely to be unwound and therefore worthless. The House of Lords held that the total package of connected transactions could be taken into account to decide whether a transaction was undervalued or not, and held that this one was.
Under IA 1986 section 127 operates to declare every transaction void entered after the presentation of a winding up petition unless it has the approval of the court. In Re Gray’s Inn Construction Co Ltd[162] Buckley LJ held that courts would habitually approve all contracts that were plainly beneficial to a company entered into in good faith and the ordinary course of business. The predominant purpose of the provision is to ensure unsecured creditors are not prejudiced, and the company's assets are not unduly depleted. In this case, however, because a host of transactions honoured by the company's bank, that was in overdraft, between the presentation and the winding up petition being granted meant unprofitable trading, the deals were declared void.[163]
Voidable preferences
The Insolvency Act 1986 section 238 only catches depletion of a company's total assets, rather than simply preferring one creditor at the expense of others.[164] This happens through the creation of security interests, and they may also be unwound on three limited grounds. First, under section 245, any floating charge created up to one year before the onset of insolvency is avoidable at the company's instance if new money was not advanced to the company in return. So a company cannot grant a floating charge to a creditor to secure past advances made by that creditor, unless given at least "at the same time". In Re Shoe Lace Ltd[165] Hoffmann J held that £350,000 advanced in April and May was not close enough to a floating charge created in July to be considered "at the same time". The floating charge could not secure those amounts. Because the context of the legislation was a business one, and in view of the fact that floating charges can be registered up to 21 days after their creation, a few months was far too long. This only rescinds the charge, and not the debt itself, which remains in effect as before but the creditor becomes unsecured.[166] Banks operating accounts for companies in overdraft have an advantage in this respect. Re Yeovil Glove Co Ltd[167] held that if the overall level of debt remains the same, before and after a floating charge is created, and if money turns over by payments of the company in and withdrawals out, the bank's continued extension of credit will continually "harden" their floating charge. Although the Yeovil Glove company was always indebted to the bank before a floating charge was created, and was indebted at the point of insolvency, because it had deposited and withdrawn a greater amount, the bank's floating charge was considered secure.[168]
The rule in section 423 applies at any time before insolvency and requires proof of intention to prejudice other creditors, but other provisions have limits set before the date of winding up and require no proof of bad intent. Under section 238, transactions at an undervalue may be avoided regardless of their purpose, but only up to two years before the onset of insolvency.[160] For example, in Phillips v Brewin Dolphin Bell Lawrie Ltd[161] the liquidators of an insolvent company, AJ Bekhor Ltd, claimed rescind the transfer of assets to a subsidiary, whose shares were then purchased by the investment management house Brewin Dolphin for £1. The only other consideration given by Brewin Dolphin was the promise to carry out a lease agreement for computers, which itself was likely to be unwound and therefore worthless. The House of Lords held that the total package of connected transactions could be taken into account to decide whether a transaction was undervalued or not, and held that this one was.
Under IA 1986 section 127 operates to declare every transaction void entered after the presentation of a winding up petition unless it has the approval of the court. In Re Gray’s Inn Construction Co Ltd[162] Buckley LJ held that courts would habitually approve all contracts that were plainly beneficial to a company entered into in good faith and the ordinary course of business. The predominant purpose of the provision is to ensure unsecured creditors are not prejudiced, and the company's assets are not unduly depleted. In this case, however, because a host of transactions honoured by the company's bank, that was in overdraft, between the presentation and the winding up petition being granted meant unprofitable trading, the deals were declared void.[163]
Voidable preferences
The Insolvency Act 1986 section 238 only catches depletion of a company's total assets, rather than simply preferring one creditor at the expense of others.[164] This happens through the creation of security interests, and they may also be unwound on three limited grounds. First, under section 245, any floating charge created up to one year before the onset of insolvency is avoidable at the company's instance if new money was not advanced to the company in return. So a company cannot grant a floating charge to a creditor to secure past advances made by that creditor, unless given at least "at the same time". In Re Shoe Lace Ltd[165] Hoffmann J held that £350,000 advanced in April and May was not close enough to a floating charge created in July to be considered "at the same time". The floating charge could not secure those amounts. Because the context of the legislation was a business one, and in view of the fact that floating charges can be registered up to 21 days after their creation, a few months was far too long. This only rescinds the charge, and not the debt itself, which remains in effect as before but the creditor becomes unsecured.[166] Banks operating accounts for companies in overdraft have an advantage in this respect. Re Yeovil Glove Co Ltd[167] held that if the overall level of debt remains the same, before and after a floating charge is created, and if money turns over by payments of the company in and withdrawals out, the bank's continued extension of credit will continually "harden" their floating charge. Although the Yeovil Glove company was always indebted to the bank before a floating charge was created, and was indebted at the point of insolvency, because it had deposited and withdrawn a greater amount, the bank's floating charge was considered secure.[168]
Rabu, 27 Maret 2013
Alera Traditional Series Wing-Back Arm - Hardwood Rich Mahogany Frame - 29.5" x 30.5" x 39.3" - Vinyl Oxblood Burgundy Seat
Alera Traditional Series Wing-Back Arm - Hardwood Rich Mahogany Frame - 29.5" x 30.5" x 39.3" - Vinyl Oxblood Burgundy Seat
Additional Information: Distance Between Arms: 29 1/4" .
For Sale wing back chairs
N/A
Selasa, 26 Maret 2013
Golden Technologies Golden Williamsburg PR747 Lift Chair
Golden Technologies Golden Williamsburg PR747 Lift Chair
A colonial design featuring a traditional wing combined with a deep plush back cushion is what makes up the Golden PR-747 Williamsburg.
The most affordable Online wing back chairs
- Seating Type : Recliners
- Style : Colonial
Golden Williamsburg PR747 Lift Chair. Home ; Furniture ; Golden Technologies. model: PR-747. Click to enlarge : Additional Resources. Traditional Series Brochure;,Golden Technologies Williamsburg PR-747 3-Position Lift Chair has fashionable button-back design that provides comfort and proper support for much needed relaxation.,Welcome To Golden Technologies > Lift Chairs > Traditional Series Golden Technologies takes all the worry out of purchasing a lift * Standard only on PR747,Golden Tech PR747 Traditional Series Lift chair Williamsburg, Elegant tufted contemporary wing back recliner with lift chair from the Traditional Series.,Golden Technologies-Golden Traditional Series Williamsburg Lift Chair Recliner PR747-PR747-This traditional chaise lounge chair has a classic colonial design complete ,The PR-747 Williamsburg by Golden Technologies is a 3-position lift chair with many exciting features to offer. The high quality craftsmanship is evident in ,Williamsburg Lift Chair PR-747 Lift chairs at wholesale prices. 1-800-798-2499 Free delivery and 3 year in home extended warranty. Comforter lift chair sale,The Williamsburg incorporates Golden lift chair technology into an incredibly thoughtful colonial chair design.,Golden Technologies Golden Williamsburg PR747 Lift Chair - PR-747 - 10 Sellers Found - Lowest Price: $949.00 - Recliners - Colonial,Williamsburg. MN: PR747. Traditional Series. Wrap yourself in comfort with the Williamsburg, a lift/recliner that features a soft colonial design with traditional
Lift Chairs - Welcome To Golden Technologies | Home
Williamsburg. MN: PR747. Traditional Series. Wrap yourself in comfort with the Williamsburg, a lift/recliner that features a soft colonial design with traditional
Golden Technologies Golden Williamsburg PR747 Lift Chair: Compare ...
Golden Technologies Golden Williamsburg PR747 Lift Chair - PR-747 - 10 Sellers Found - Lowest Price: $949.00 - Recliners - Colonial
Williamsburg PR747 Traditional Series Lift Chair by Golden ...
The Williamsburg incorporates Golden lift chair technology into an incredibly thoughtful colonial chair design.
Williamsburg Lift Chair PR-747 By Golden Technologies - Lift Chair
Williamsburg Lift Chair PR-747 Lift chairs at wholesale prices. 1-800-798-2499 Free delivery and 3 year in home extended warranty. Comforter lift chair sale
Golden Lift Chairs: Williamsburg 747 by Golden Technologies
The PR-747 Williamsburg by Golden Technologies is a 3-position lift chair with many exciting features to offer. The high quality craftsmanship is evident in
Golden Technologies Golden Traditional Series Williamsburg Lift ...
Golden Technologies-Golden Traditional Series Williamsburg Lift Chair Recliner PR747-PR747-This traditional chaise lounge chair has a classic colonial design complete
Golden Tech PR747 Traditional Series Lift chair Williamsburg ...
Golden Tech PR747 Traditional Series Lift chair Williamsburg, Elegant tufted contemporary wing back recliner with lift chair from the Traditional Series.
Welcome To Golden Technologies | Traditional Series
Welcome To Golden Technologies > Lift Chairs > Traditional Series Golden Technologies takes all the worry out of purchasing a lift * Standard only on PR747
Golden Technologies Williamsburg | - Med Emporium
Golden Technologies Williamsburg PR-747 3-Position Lift Chair has fashionable button-back design that provides comfort and proper support for much needed relaxation.
Golden PR747 Williamsburg Lift Chair - US Medical Supplies
Golden Williamsburg PR747 Lift Chair. Home ; Furniture ; Golden Technologies. model: PR-747. Click to enlarge : Additional Resources. Traditional Series Brochure;
Williamsburg. MN: PR747. Traditional Series. Wrap yourself in comfort with the Williamsburg, a lift/recliner that features a soft colonial design with traditional
Golden Technologies Golden Williamsburg PR747 Lift Chair: Compare ...
Golden Technologies Golden Williamsburg PR747 Lift Chair - PR-747 - 10 Sellers Found - Lowest Price: $949.00 - Recliners - Colonial
Williamsburg PR747 Traditional Series Lift Chair by Golden ...
The Williamsburg incorporates Golden lift chair technology into an incredibly thoughtful colonial chair design.
Williamsburg Lift Chair PR-747 By Golden Technologies - Lift Chair
Williamsburg Lift Chair PR-747 Lift chairs at wholesale prices. 1-800-798-2499 Free delivery and 3 year in home extended warranty. Comforter lift chair sale
Golden Lift Chairs: Williamsburg 747 by Golden Technologies
The PR-747 Williamsburg by Golden Technologies is a 3-position lift chair with many exciting features to offer. The high quality craftsmanship is evident in
Golden Technologies Golden Traditional Series Williamsburg Lift ...
Golden Technologies-Golden Traditional Series Williamsburg Lift Chair Recliner PR747-PR747-This traditional chaise lounge chair has a classic colonial design complete
Golden Tech PR747 Traditional Series Lift chair Williamsburg ...
Golden Tech PR747 Traditional Series Lift chair Williamsburg, Elegant tufted contemporary wing back recliner with lift chair from the Traditional Series.
Welcome To Golden Technologies | Traditional Series
Welcome To Golden Technologies > Lift Chairs > Traditional Series Golden Technologies takes all the worry out of purchasing a lift * Standard only on PR747
Golden Technologies Williamsburg | - Med Emporium
Golden Technologies Williamsburg PR-747 3-Position Lift Chair has fashionable button-back design that provides comfort and proper support for much needed relaxation.
Golden PR747 Williamsburg Lift Chair - US Medical Supplies
Golden Williamsburg PR747 Lift Chair. Home ; Furniture ; Golden Technologies. model: PR-747. Click to enlarge : Additional Resources. Traditional Series Brochure;
Langganan:
Komentar (Atom)
