@Jonokeydokey: #rangerstaxcase @Paulmcc12 #rangers Craig Whyte speaking at CoS liquidation hearing. reported as saying "Trick or Treat"!
Printable View
@Jonokeydokey: #rangerstaxcase @Paulmcc12 #rangers Craig Whyte speaking at CoS liquidation hearing. reported as saying "Trick or Treat"!
@carasulieman: Right. Duff & Phelps are applying to end administration and hand over to BDO for liquidation.
@carasulieman: The "estate" handed over would include £1.7bn in cash plus "other assets". #Rangers
@carasulieman: However, Collyer Bristow, one of the creditors, are opposing the petition.
@carasulieman: It's technically two petitions - one to end administration and another to appoint liquidators. Lord Hodge being asked to consider both.
@carasulieman: D&P say the main purpose of the administration - "to maintain the company as a going concern" - was not achieved. #Rangers
@carasulieman: But they maintain they achieved another "minor objective" of "getting a better return". #Rangers
@carasulieman: We haven't heard from Collyer Bristow yet so not heard detail of their objection. #Rangers
@carasulieman: D&P told Lord Hodge Collyer Bristow did not vote on latest round of resolutions, which included today's action.
@Paulmcc12: Oldco #Rangers Liquidation Petition Heading for Extra Time? http://t.co/bbIHEOpO
Oldco #Rangers Liquidation Petition Heading for Extra Time?
Some info regarding the progress of the Rangers liquidation hearing before Lord Hodge today.
As with everything in this saga, it is not straightforward.
Three of the issues so far –
Collyer Bristow, lawyers for oldco under Craig Whyte and also defendants in court actions raised for millions of pounds by Duff & Phelps as administrators, have opposed the ending of administration. Tactically this may be designed to help them with the court actions, but the grounds for objecting are not yet clear.
Lord Hodge has asked for a transcript of the Craig Whyte tape, as heard on the BBC recently. It appears that it might be necessary for a court order to be granted before the transcript would be handed over.
There is a challenge to Duff & Phelps’ claimed remuneration of in excess of £3 million.
If Lord Hodge needs the transcript to finalise administration, then there will be a delay. Whether or not his Lordship was satisfied by the earlier report given to the court by D&P, the alleged conversation between Mr Grier and Mr Whyte clearly has raised concerns in the judge’s mind, as is understandable.
D&P, as their response to the BBC, said they did not comment on matters taken out of context. The whole transcript would put matters very much into context.
Hopefully that would not show up any inconsistencies with the report already lodged with the court!
The matter is adjourned for lunch.
Posted by Paul McConville
@carasulieman: Lord Hodge also mentioned he is "very concerned" about recent allegations & has asked BBC for DVD and transcript. #Rangers
Oh dear.
Now that would be newsworthy!Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
I had a wee word with her. Quickly corrected lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
@Paulmcc12: Not a Live Blog of the Oldco #Rangers Liquidation Hearing http://t.co/BmazJ4yP
Not a Live Blog of the Oldco #Rangers Liquidation Hearing
Some additional thoughts arising from the reports so far from this morning’s case at the Court of Session before Lord Hodge.
As long as no one wonders about the sound of the laptop coming from the cupboard in the courtroom, I hope to keep the updates going this afternoon. I would ask any of the counsel appearing in the case to ensure they speak up, as the cupboard door makes it difficult sometimes to hear.
Counsel for Duff + Phelps told the court that there were £1.7 million of cash and “other assets” to be handed over by the administrators to the liquidators.
Bearing in mind that Sevco paid £5.5 million for all of the assets, how is the balance so reduced?
One reason – Duff & Phelps fees are in excess of £1 million and the costs incurred by them for various matters, but especially legal expenses regarding the English court actions against Collyer Bristow are over £1 million.
And of course, should the there liquidators not recover any more money, they will be paid out of the £1.7 million. The creditors will do well to see a penny, it appears.
However the costs sought by Duff & Phelps are being challenged in this hearing, and they are required to justify their position regarding them to the court.
What “other assets” are there?
This would seem to comprise the various claims ongoing, such as the cases against Collyer Bristow, Prichard Stockbrokers re the Arsenal Shares and potentially Mr Betts, although the last one seems to have dropped off D&P’s radar, at least from the reports they have produced. In addition, D&P were looking at one stage at pursuing return of the £250,000 paid, supposedly, to Banstead Athletic, the English non-league team with whom Aidan Earley is alleged to be connected, Mr Earley being a long time associate of Mr Whyte’s.
Other than that, it is hard to see what other assets there might be, as Sevco bought “the whole assets” of Rangers.
Collyer Bristow are objecting to the end of administration. I wondered what locus they had to argue this but, on checking the creditors list in the April proposal by D+P, Collyer Bristow is listed as a creditor to the sum of just over £40,000. As a creditor it can participate in the court proceedings regarding the administration process. However, as counsel for Collyer Bristow has not yet addressed the court, the precise terms of their objection are not clear.
It was indicated that, whilst Lord Hodge wanted to see the transcript of the BBC tape of Mr Whyte’s conversation with Mr Grier, this was not “relevant” to the issue before the court today.
This could well be recognition that, as the assets have been sold, there is no reason for the liquidators not to be in place now, but that would not preclude action against Duff & Phelps should the courts or regulatory authorities determine that rules have been broken.
It strikes me that lengthy hearings of evidence might be needed to determine if D&P have erred or not, and it would be prejudicial to the creditors to tie the issue up together.
I suspect that Duff & Phelps, even if administration ends today, will not have seen the last of Lord Hodge’s courtroom!
Posted by Paul McConville (desperate to sneak out of the cupboard to stretch his legs)
More to read sorry lol.
@Paulmcc12: The Tweeted Report by @mdkster on This Morning's #Rangers Hearing http://t.co/xfKBu8Hv
The Tweeted Report by @mdkster on This Morning’s #Rangers Hearing
I’m not in the CoS afternoon I’m afraid. It seems that Collyer Bristow are challenging D&P’s application to end the admin and appoint BDO.
CB’s lawyer hasn’t spoken yet, but it seems that they want nothing further to happen on the admin until the ‘MCR’ issue has been clarified.
Ticketus emailed D&P that, “for entirely commercial reasons”, they don’t currently intend to challenge D&P’s decision to reject their claim>
<but Ticketus reserve all rights (e.g. to press their claim against the liquidators). Ticketus voted against D&P fees, but vote was ignored.
D&P’s lawyer argued that, if no creditor challenges (and none has so far), the Court has no power to interfere with accounts or their fees.
HMRC proposed amendments to the resolutions at the last creditors’ meeting, which “slightly reduced” D&P’s fees, and they’ve been accepted
HMRC claim was accepted in full (£94m) for voting purposes because the tax assessments are effectively unless & until FTT decides otherwise.
The FTT proceedings ended in January. D&P’s lawyer told Lord Hodge that they do not know when the FTT decision will be issued.
D&P provided a report on the ‘conflict’ allegations to the Court and the IPA. There’s no update on the IPA investigation. LH asked whether>
<the IPA had been alerted to the subsequent allegations made by the BBC (i.e. the CW tape). LH has asked the BBC for DVDs of the May & Oct>
<broadcasts and for a transcript of the conversation. The BBC has “not volunteered” a transcript & LH may need to take steps to compel this.
LH is “very concerned” by the allegations, which call into question the probity of the proceedings. D&P are officers of the Court, and so>
<the Court has an interest in ensuring that the allegations are properly aired. LH said that the comments may have been taken out of context
LH will hold a hearing at which the BBC can make representations before making any Court Order for the production of the transcript/evidence
LH was cross that D&P had not given him any documents until this morning, and contained errors. D&P’s lawyer (Wolff QC) seemed ill-prepared.
I expect that the hearing will last all day (LH is busy the rest of the week). Suspect that D&P’s petition will not be granted today but >
< difficult to predict given that CB’s lawyer had not spoken yet. LH was being very thorough in that all matters are dealt with properly.
so whats the current situation in leymans terms? im finding it hard to follow the tweet updates
Lord Hodge seems reluctant to finish the administration. Collyer Bristow seem to be unwilling to let it go either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibee87
My guess is that a decision will be deferred for the moment. Which delay will cost money, which will restrict the amount of cash available to BDO, or the creditors.
It's not ideal, but I can understand LH's position.
cheers :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
officially now in liquidation.
@carasulieman: Lord Hodge granted the petitions and oldco #Rangers are now in liquidation.
Deadhun.
Ignore my wise words. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibee87
Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
RIP Rangers FC 1872-2012
Sevco to be toast next!
A Pedant writes.... They're no deid until the liquidation has ended. That could take years.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
To paraphrase Winnie... "this is not the end, nor even the beginning of the end....but, **** me, we're getting close."
So what happens now?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The hammer and nails are laid on the coffin lid in readiness.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
BDO are now in place as liquidators. It is their job to wind the company up, to the benefit of creditors.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
Normally, that would just be a simple case of pulling in all the cash that is available, and doling it out to the creditors. However, they may take the view that there is mileage (and money) to be had in reviewing the conduct of the administration, and challenging the transaction that valued the assets of the company at £5.5m.
That's a gamble, I reckon. Such a move would cost money, and there is no guarantee of success. So, it may result in creditors receiving even less than they are currently entitled to.
They may decide to sue D&P for the amount of that alleged undervalue. Again, no guarantee of success.
Also, D&P were suing Collyer Bristow for £25?m. BDO will need to take a view on whether they continue with that.
The most immediate event will be the FTT verdict, which will affect the amount available to creditors. Once that verdict is in, BDO may take a view on the culpability (and hence the liability) of the directors of RFC at the time the EBT's were being used. That might be fun.
However, we have to bear in mind that BDO only have £1.7m to play with now. They have to get their own fees out of that, and there may not be enough in the pot to enable them to do all of the above.
All in all, there is plenty to keep this thread going over the winter.:greengrin
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
Unfortunately in the sham fantasy world of Scottish football Rangers carry on regardless and attempt to get into the Semi Final of a national tournament of which we are out. In the real world creditors continue to get royally shafted.
I've a question for you about this. You're saying that the extent of BDO's activities is restricted by the amount in the company's pot. I can see that in a situation where a business failure has resulted from bad, but well-intentioned, management decisions. However, is there any way that they can access other funds (perhaps from HMRC) if initial investigations indicate potential criminal activity?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If there isn't, then the implication would be that a swindler's chance of getting away with things would be greater the more efficient he was in removing resources from a business. That doesn't sound right.
Good question. Which means "no idea, mate". :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
I would doubt it, especially as it would probably set a precedent. I can't see HMRC (for example) being allowed to do it..... and, from a commercial point of view, it may not be worth their while.
On your last point, there is "getting away with things" commercially, but also legally. You're probably right about the former, but if a liquidator is worth his salt, he will be able to refer things to the police and let the public pay for the swindler's come-uppance. And then, once guilt has been proven legally, it is easier to bring private cases to recover losses.
Thanks for the reply. I'd thought it possible that HMRC might have a general "public interest" fund which would allow them to continue investigations which an individual company's residual funds couldn't support.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
This might be what you're after.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/emmanual/em0367.htm
If I were a creditor now I'd be saying 'keep my cash and go after the corrupt *****, the whole lot'.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If BDO go hard after the same type of law firm as D&P are they likely to damage their own business in the long run by being outcast from the industry?
No. That's their job.Quote:
Originally Posted by VickMackie
Excellent, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod