Texas court halts sale of Dippers

[Mikeegrini]

According to the mirror, NESV have a legal binding agreement which means they are the preferred bidder, this legal bind stops Hicks from selling to Mill finance and leaves a clear run for NESV.

I'd have to ask then why wasn't the sale concluded last week?

They have an agreement with some members of the Liverpool board, not the owners.

But the court in London this week 'proved' that responsibility for sale fell to the board not the owners, under the rules of the refinance deal. H&G may be owners but they have no control of sale, however they still have the right to refinance......someone tell me please does that sum things up???

 

[lancs blue]

It's like Brookside & dallas rolled in one!!

Does that mean JR's buried under the patio?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I'd have to ask then why wasn't the sale concluded last week?

They have an agreement with some members of the Liverpool board, not the owners.

But the court in London this week 'proved' that responsibility for sale fell to the board not the owners, under the rules of the refinance deal. H&G may be owners but they have no control of sale, however they still have the right to refinance......someone tell me please does that sum things up???

But if H&G repay RBS by 4pm today then they've met their requirement and there is, in theory, no need for a sale.

Also not clear whether the Corporate Governance agreement between H&G and LFC applies to Mill Financial as well. If it doesn't then, as the owner of the shares they call the shots. Getting more fascinating by the hour.

 

[southern muppet]

But the court in London this week 'proved' that responsibility for sale fell to the board not the owners, under the rules of the refinance deal. H&G may be owners but they have no control of sale, however they still have the right to refinance......someone tell me please does that sum things up???

But if H&G repay RBS by 4pm today then they've met their requirement and there is, in theory, no need for a sale.

Also not clear whether the Corporate Governance agreement between H&G and LFC applies to Mill Financial as well. If it doesn't then, as the owner of the shares they call the shots. Getting more fascinating by the hour.

So basically at 4pm, there could be the mother of all scouse grief-explosions?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

But the court in London this week 'proved' that responsibility for sale fell to the board not the owners, under the rules of the refinance deal. H&G may be owners but they have no control of sale, however they still have the right to refinance......someone tell me please does that sum things up???

But if H&G repay RBS by 4pm today then they've met their requirement and there is, in theory, no need for a sale.

Also not clear whether the Corporate Governance agreement between H&G and LFC applies to Mill Financial as well. If it doesn't then, as the owner of the shares they call the shots. Getting more fascinating by the hour.

This is certainly how I see it. This whole soap opera of a week is nothing but bluster if Hicks finds his money.

Maybe RBS were convinced Hicks had run out of options?

Nobody has even mentioned the counter legals which will come of this, regardless of the victor.

NESQ would contest on the binding agreement.

If you take away the bumf, it seems a simple case of whether Hicks is legally able to refinance before a 4pm deadline?

And I have to ask, why the hell couldn't he?

 

[crystal_mais]

It's like Brookside & dallas rolled in one!!

Does that mean JR's buried under the patio?

Don't know but Jimmy Corkhill is waiting in his car wanting to knock H&G down

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

RBS could end up having a lot of explaining to the UK taxpayers if they´re not careful - this could end up in the Commons and number 10 - "Dippers - special case" scenario looms again

 

[Dr.Faustus]

I'd have to ask then why wasn't the sale concluded last week?

They have an agreement with some members of the Liverpool board, not the owners.

I must admit that I'm pretty lost with all this, but that seems to be a fair point - if the Mirror article is true regarding how watertight the sale is, then it begs the question of why the need for all the shenanigans this week.

Whether the deal is watertight or not depends upon what kind of an undertaking MB was given and whether the Articles of Association were altered to affect this. If the changes were affected as MB stated in his interview with the BBC, NESV (baring any more unforeseen challenges on the basis of the companies constitution) probably do have a valid agreement. If however the AoA have not been changed in the way MB believes them to have been- it is possible that Mills could clear the debt (subject to many conditions, dependent upon the kind of arrangement that RBS had/has with H&G)- if this happens presumably Mills/Hicks stay somewhat in control (dependent upon their arrangement) there will be more legal wrangling over the constitution of the company for damages.

There are too many variables (and I don't believe anyone has access to either the AoA or the agreements between the parties) to assess the situation further- without knowing the factual contents of the documents speculation (like the above) is all that can be discussed.

 

[Mikeegrini]

But the court in London this week 'proved' that responsibility for sale fell to the board not the owners, under the rules of the refinance deal. H&G may be owners but they have no control of sale, however they still have the right to refinance......someone tell me please does that sum things up???

But if H&G repay RBS by 4pm today then they've met their requirement and there is, in theory, no need for a sale.

Also not clear whether the Corporate Governance agreement between H&G and LFC applies to Mill Financial as well. If it doesn't then, as the owner of the shares they call the shots. Getting more fascinating by the hour.

Cheers PB

 

[Dr.Faustus]

But if H&G repay RBS by 4pm today then they've met their requirement and there is, in theory, no need for a sale.

Also not clear whether the Corporate Governance agreement between H&G and LFC applies to Mill Financial as well. If it doesn't then, as the owner of the shares they call the shots. Getting more fascinating by the hour.

Cheers PB

Again, that is subject to the question: in effect, who now legally controls the decision to sell as laid out in the AoA (part of the constitution of the company)?

Regardless of who 'owns' the company by 4pm the finality of 'ownership' will be decided by the above.