Texas court halts sale of Dippers

[Marvin]

If H&G had won the Court case then that may have had led to a points deduction, but it may also have led to a takeover from wealthier bidders.

Not a bad trade off for a City fan.

Maybe Liverpool's form was down to the off field distractions (and they will now rally), but I suspect it had more to do with a declining squad/poor management from Benitez in which case their struggles are likely to continue

 

[bluemoon32]

If H&G had won the Court case then that may have had led to a points deduction, but it may also have led to a takeover from wealthier bidders.

Not a bad trade off for a City fan.

Maybe Liverpool's form was down to the off field distractions (and they will now rally), but I suspect it had more to do with a declining squad/poor management from Benitez in which case their struggles are likely to continue

I think having mostly shit players played a part in their form mate

 

[Cambridgeblue]

I'm fairly confident raising the prices of ordinary fan's season tickets is not on the agenda. I'd expect any rises to be close to inflation. They wouldn't do £95 for kids, 18-21 prices, and value seasoncards for £250 if big price rises were on the agenda. I did the maths after the accounts were published and on last year's figures, season ticket sales rose 13.8% but revenue only went up by 10.3%. For a start, it would make little difference to revenue in the grand scheme of things. Right now, the money generated from season ticket sales is £9.6m. So, say we doubled prices across the board. That would take prices in the East and CB stands to £1,000 or more for an adult, on a par with the most expensive of the London clubs, and yet we'd only net £9.6m from that assuming the club could find the people to pay it. More money to be generated elsewhere and far less painfully than that. Our owners have shown they give a shit about us. Comparing us to the rags being anally raped is beyond ridiculous.

Can't argue much with your numbers here, but I think you miss... ETC ETC ETC

With all due respect stop hijacking this thread.

 

[persvenality cult]

interesting take from the web;

My name is Henry Adams and I am an international litigator at a firm called Birketts LLP. I acted for one of the parties in a recent leading English anti-suit injunction case which went to Court of Appeal level. I'm also a Red but that's by the by.

The comments on your blog from Mark Stephens are unfortunately not quite right. Here is the position:

The Texan Court injunction is binding on the board et al in the UK, until the injunction there is lifted by the Texan Court. The anti-suit injunction is not an order against the Texan Court itself. Instead, it is effectively an order compelling H&G to apply to the Texan Court to lift the injunction, on the basis that the Texan Court has no jurisdiction to determine this case. H&G therefore face a choice: either they lift the injunction or be in contempt of the English Court anti-suit injunction, the punishment for which can include imprisonment. H&G would most likely not want to return to the UK with contempt proceedings hanging over their heads.

Hope that helps - fascinating scenario!

Henry

KFC LLP v RBS/Broughton et al will be heard in the Texas courts, 7pm tonight.

 

[Cambridgeblue]

let's see if I've got this right;

Judge gives H&G until 4pm tomorrow (London time) to comply with order...

Complying with order meaning; removing the Texas injuction, not engaging in any other legal actions outside of the UK. They have filed for contempt in the Texas court, presumably following though on that would constitute a breach of this order.

The threat being; or you will be in contempt of court. Does this mean they would be liable to be sued if they failed to comply?

What other effect could this order have?


I ask, because, outside of legal actions, H&G can do nothing, as the board is 3/2 against them.

It seems their only hope was to place the 'Independent' Directors under threat of litigation if they completed the deal. As I see it this order will likely force the Texas court to back down anyway.

but did anyone read this 'Corporate Governance Side Letter'?

Is there any way, if they got the money together, they could pay off RBS, and have a strong case that the agreement was over?

Or would doing that place them in contempt of this injunction, or yesterdays ruling? not that I think they have anything more than a prayer of a third party being happy to wade into this. I just can't really see why they would have proceeded as they did, unless they were looking to stall for a few days. If the CGSA wasn't limited to 'whilst the debt to RBS remains', they really have wasted everyone's time and there was no possibility of them ever winning.

Nobody in court has seen the CGSL other than the lawyers involved. The only bits we know of are the ones read out in court.

Since the CGSL was part of the credit facility it should expire if the debt is repaid.<br /><br />-- Thu Oct 14, 2010 6:32 pm --<br /><br />

My name is Henry Adams and I am an international litigator at a firm called Birketts LLP. I acted for one of the parties in a recent leading English anti-suit injunction case which went to Court of Appeal level. I'm also a Red but that's by the by.

The comments on your blog from Mark Stephens are unfortunately not quite right. Here is the position:

The Texan Court injunction is binding on the board et al in the UK, until the injunction there is lifted by the Texan Court. The anti-suit injunction is not an order against the Texan Court itself. Instead, it is effectively an order compelling H&G to apply to the Texan Court to lift the injunction, on the basis that the Texan Court has no jurisdiction to determine this case. H&G therefore face a choice: either they lift the injunction or be in contempt of the English Court anti-suit injunction, the punishment for which can include imprisonment. H&G would most likely not want to return to the UK with contempt proceedings hanging over their heads.

Hope that helps - fascinating scenario!

Henry

Exactly what I suspected, as you will see from my posts earlier today.

Basically another mandatory injunction forcing H&G to withdraw their restraining order.

 

[shootmeifipost10k]

let's see if I've got this right;



Complying with order meaning; removing the Texas injuction, not engaging in any other legal actions outside of the UK. They have filed for contempt in the Texas court, presumably following though on that would constitute a breach of this order.

The threat being; or you will be in contempt of court. Does this mean they would be liable to be sued if they failed to comply?

What other effect could this order have?


I ask, because, outside of legal actions, H&G can do nothing, as the board is 3/2 against them.

It seems their only hope was to place the 'Independent' Directors under threat of litigation if they completed the deal. As I see it this order will likely force the Texas court to back down anyway.

but did anyone read this 'Corporate Governance Side Letter'?

Is there any way, if they got the money together, they could pay off RBS, and have a strong case that the agreement was over?

Or would doing that place them in contempt of this injunction, or yesterdays ruling? not that I think they have anything more than a prayer of a third party being happy to wade into this. I just can't really see why they would have proceeded as they did, unless they were looking to stall for a few days. If the CGSA wasn't limited to 'whilst the debt to RBS remains', they really have wasted everyone's time and there was no possibility of them ever winning.

Nobody in court has seen the CGSL other than the lawyers involved. The only bits we know of are the ones read out in court.

Since the CGSL was part of the credit facility it should expire if the debt is repaid.

Cambridgeblue can I ask you a couple of questions as I've no idea how these things work

If G&H came up with the money before deadline of the loans are they simple able to pay it off even after the ruling in court yesterday?

Also if the club gets sold and at a later date it is found RBS and the board who voted on the sale didn't act with the shareholders interest,what happens ? would it be a case of H&G sueing or could they in any way make a claim for ownership of the club if they got funding to pay of the RBS debt that was place before the sale.

Thickos wording would be appreciated

 

[rickmcfc]

Please please please can someone explain in simple terms, what the bleeding hell is going on here? i have been trying to follow this and im completely lost in it all. Even if it takes someone 10 minutes to write it out i would be really grateful. Im interested in it but totally confused. Cheers blues.

 

[Blue Tooth]

Please please please can someone explain in simple terms, what the bleeding hell is going on here? i have been trying to follow this and im completely lost in it all. Even if it takes someone 10 minutes to write it out i would be really grateful. Im interested in it but totally confused. Cheers blues.

That's Easy...Liverpool are fucked.

 

[rickmcfc]

Please please please can someone explain in simple terms, what the bleeding hell is going on here? i have been trying to follow this and im completely lost in it all. Even if it takes someone 10 minutes to write it out i would be really grateful. Im interested in it but totally confused. Cheers blues.

That's Easy...Liverpool are fucked.

Thanks for your "long and thoughtsome" reply really appreciated. Now could you maybe delve a little deeped for me please, cheers.

 

[Cambridgeblue]

Nobody in court has seen the CGSL other than the lawyers involved. The only bits we know of are the ones read out in court.

Since the CGSL was part of the credit facility it should expire if the debt is repaid.

Cambridgeblue can I ask you a couple of questions as I've no idea how these things work

If G&H came up with the money before deadline of the loans are they simple able to pay it off even after the ruling in court yesterday?

Also if the club gets sold and at a later date it is found RBS and the board who voted on the sale didn't act with the shareholders interest,what happens ? would it be a case of H&G sueing or could they in any way make a claim for ownership of the club if they got funding to pay of the RBS debt that was place before the sale.

Thickos wording would be appreciated

If they came up with the money in time and there was no completed agreement to sell then they would, probably, be able to retain control. The reason I say probably is that the arrangements are complicated and nobody has the full picture (except the board, RBS and Hicks + Gillette).

As for the second point if a sale were agreed at an undervalue, as H&G say it will be if the NESV bid goes ahead, then the result would be H&G suing the directors and possibly RBS for the loss of value (i.e. the difference between the sale and the market value). They certainly would not regain control of the club.