Texas court halts sale of Dippers

[BobKowalski]

According to my legal friends, Hicks has got a case, if Mill Financial offered to pay the RBS and they refused it. And I mean a multi billion dollar case.

I would agree - although the Mill Finance gambit ultimately failed it will have massively strengthened H&G's case against the Directors / RBS as there was clearly a concrete deal in place that would have repaid RBS.

Ultimately it seems Broughton, Ayres and Purslow took considerations such as fan pressure into account ahead of their duties to the shareholders. This dispute will rumble on for some time.

-- Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:59 pm --

Agreed. The board is the only legally constituted entity with authority to conduct and agree to the sale of LFC. H&G tried to challenge this authority in the UK courts and failed with no leave for appeal. This leaves the board to sell to who they want and for the price they want.

Some hedge fund approaching RBS at the last minute with an 'offer' to pay outstanding loans would be politely declined at this late stage as any hint of acceptance could scupper the approved deal currently on the table and jeopardise RBS's efforts to secure the payment of the loan through a lawfully approved bid to buy the club for £300m.

H&G were owners of LFC in name only with no legal authority to decide or do anything with LFC. They f**ked up. They paid the price. H&G will do everything the can to minimise their losses but personally can't see it proving successful. The board and RBS had this legally sewn up tighter than a gnat's chuff. All H&G can do is 'make a lot of noise over there'

I disagree because the directors still owed statutory duties to H&G REGARDLESS of the terms of their appointment under the CGSL.

I disagree. The UK High Court also disagrees. The Directors have a statutory duty to shareholders but H&G waived that statutory duty when they signed off on the refinancing deal.

 

[southern muppet]

According to my legal friends, Hicks has got a case, if Mill Financial offered to pay the RBS and they refused it. And I mean a multi billion dollar case.

They'd be suing RBS though so that wouldn't impact on the Dippers as such~ Or am I wrong?

 

[BobKowalski]

According to my legal friends, Hicks has got a case, if Mill Financial offered to pay the RBS and they refused it. And I mean a multi billion dollar case.

They'd be suing RBS though so that wouldn't impact on the Dippers as such~ Or am I wrong?

RBS and NSEV as well I suspect. Basically anyone with assets in the US and is involved in the deal. LFC may be named but the only impact would be through NSEV

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

i heard it's been held up cos the wheel on the bin that Henry's using to transfer the cash to RBS has fallen off, and when he went back to Liverpool to nick a replacement someone dipped in his bin so he needs to go to the bank and take out a loan to cover the deal.

 

[southern muppet]

They'd be suing RBS though so that wouldn't impact on the Dippers as such~ Or am I wrong?

RBS and NSEV as well I suspect. Basically anyone with assets in the US and is involved in the deal. LFC may be named but the only impact would be through NSEV

Cheers. I suppose that could be a very big impact on the Dippers then if their owners were sued for £1.6 billion (or $1.6 billion?) and lost!

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

According to my legal friends, Hicks has got a case, if Mill Financial offered to pay the RBS and they refused it. And I mean a multi billion dollar case.

They'd be suing RBS though so that wouldn't impact on the Dippers as such~ Or am I wrong?

No but if RBS got screwed politicians would be obliged to ask questions as to why the UK taxpayers have ended up with the tab

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

They knew they wouldn't be able to sell the club in the current financial climate so H&G have manoeuvred this outcome it's ideal for them, wait and see them pursue their claim for damages against RBS they've been clever and I think they could win.
Should the same thing happen to the rags I'd expect to see a similar scenario

 

[inbetween]

Been a bit out of the loop the last day or so on this, does the 4:30pm deadline still stand?

 

[dom]

So under what circumstances and when might they go into administration ???

 

[Dr.Faustus]

I would agree - although the Mill Finance gambit ultimately failed it will have massively strengthened H&G's case against the Directors / RBS as there was clearly a concrete deal in place that would have repaid RBS.

Ultimately it seems Broughton, Ayres and Purslow took considerations such as fan pressure into account ahead of their duties to the shareholders. This dispute will rumble on for some time.

-- Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:59 pm --



I disagree because the directors still owed statutory duties to H&G REGARDLESS of the terms of their appointment under the CGSL.

I disagree. The UK High Court also disagrees. The Directors have a statutory duty to shareholders but H&G waived that statutory duty when they signed off on the refinancing deal.

If and until, the judges verdict and summary is made available to legal databases and the ratio of the court is expressly evidenced (and by extension it is analysed), I think you both may as well, from what is known so far, concede that there is an element of truth in either explanation. I am sure the debate surrounding board control over the company; with regards to general duties, fiduciary (in this case directors) duties and the validity of a waiver and of course the (at the time) pending creditor involvement (i.e. whether the board owed a duty to the creditors in the light of the impending takeover by RBS) - will be fleshed out in further court verdicts as the dispute shows no sign of ending. Furthermore, until the aforementioned verdict/future verdicts and/or (more unlikely) substantial details of the early agreements of the tripartite contractual dispute are made available- the debate is still a speculative one.