Texas court halts sale of Dippers

[Tricky_Trev]

It's just been on SSN that the other offer from Lim has been withdrawn.
If those 2 yanks win the Court battle Liverpool are really screwed.

I don't think H&G have any realistic hope of winning.

 

[cleavers]

Where's that popcorn emoticon again ??

 

[Cambridgeblue]

By referring to the stakeholders RBS mean a 3rd party, who though?.. Liverpool city council or could the boss of RBS be a big Redsox fan.

Stakeholders is a pretty wide term but normally it encompasses shareholders, trade partners, creditors and customers. Basically anyone who has a reason to care (i.e. a stake, though not necessarily via debt or equity) about the future of the business as opposed to the man in the street who couldn't give two hoots.

 

[The Fixer]

Latest

The high court judge sympathetic to liverpool, RBS ssn saying the feeling in court is the restraining order carries no weight over here in the uk, liverpool are at solicitors office thrashing out all details to conclude deal with NESV.

 

[Mikeegrini]

By referring to the stakeholders RBS mean a 3rd party, who though?.. Liverpool city council or could the boss of RBS be a big Redsox fan.

I think you cold be trying to read too much into this.

Could using the term ''stakeholders'' just be language to assuage the supporters?

 

[bluemonkey71]

Where's that popcorn emoticon again ??

 

[Anonymous]

Not strange really. Under normal circumstances it would be the shareholders whose interests were paramount. But RBS could call this debt in anytime they wanted so their interests are also at stake, as well as fans, if RBS were to go down the administration route.

Under English insolvency law the interests should rank in the follwing order:

1. Creditors with fixed charges.
2. Preferential creditors – primarily wages (up to £800 per employee) and
occupational pensions.
3. Creditors with floating charges (which will have crystallised, if not before, then upon commencement of the winding up).
4. Unsecured creditors, to the extent that they are not paid off from any ring-fenced fund.
5. Shareholders (according to the rights attaching to their shares).

Stakeholders (i.e. fans) have no rights.

Under the Companies Act 2006 s.172 the directors owe a duty to promote the success of the company for the benefit of the members as a whole. In doing so they may have regard to:

(c) the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,
(d) the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment,

However their primary duty is still to the shareholders.

So whether under insolvency law or company law the shareholders interests ALWAYS rank above those of fans / customers (who aren't creditors).

RBS's control of KFHL/KFL/LFC should, morally if not legally, be limited to the extent of it's security.

All that Broughton and co should have been concerned with (as directors representing RBS) was whether the bids on the table would repay RBS. Once that threshold was reached they should, I think, have turned their attention to which deal was better for the shareholders in terms of either generating a profit or at the very least minimising their losses.

God darnit CambridgeBlue, you use your tongue prettier 'n a $20 whore.

 

[stony]

Where's that popcorn emoticon again ??

 

[Cambridgeblue]

I think we've exhausted all possible speculation so until more is known I'm off... catch you all later.

 

[mat]

By referring to the stakeholders RBS mean a 3rd party, who though?.. Liverpool city council or could the boss of RBS be a big Redsox fan.

[bigimg]http://www.olboyssoccer.com/images/barclays-premier-league.png[/bigimg]