Jump to content

Final D&P Report


North Rd

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

8. Remaining Assets to be Dealt with in the Liquidation

Arsenal Holdings Shares

8.1 A distribution in the sum of £111,607 has been received from the Special Administration of Pritchard, by way of a 50p in the £ dividend against the claim filed against Pritchard of £223,214.

8.2 Based upon information received from the Special Administrators of Pritchard, the timing and quantum of any additional distributions remains uncertain, however it is likely that such additional distributions will be received in the Liquidation.

Litigation in England

8.3 The Joint Administrators have issued proceedings in the High Court in London against Collyer Bristow solicitors as previously reported to creditors. This claim is for the sum of approximately £25 million and is being defended by solicitors acting for the defendants. The litigation commenced on 1 March 2012 by application to the Companies Court of the High Court (application number 2003/2012). The application, made under sections 234 and 236 of the Act sought (inter alia) the urgent return of monies which appeared to be due to the Company from Collyer Bristow (the "Fund").

8.4 In accordance with the Order of Mr Justice Floyd dated 1 March 2012, the Joint Administrators gave notice of the application to further parties. On 8 March 2012, Mr Justice Warren ordered an expedited trial of the application to take place commencing on 30 March 2012 (time estimate 4 days). The matter was considered at that point to be very urgent business as the Joint Administrators projected a significant cash shortfall in respect of trading the Club.

8.5 In the course of preparing for that trial it became apparent that the total claims to the Fund exceeded the value of the Fund, secondly that it would not be possible for the Court to decide ownership of the Fund in the narrowly framed application and finally that there were wider claims against Collyer Bristow (relating to the Fund) that could conveniently be heard by the Court together with the application. As a result, the trial was vacated by Order of Mr Justice Sales on 23 March 2012. The Company and two further parties who claimed an interest in the Fund; Merchant Turnaround plc ("Merchant") (1); The Trustees of the Jerome Group plc pension fund ("Jerome") (2)) issued their own proceedings against Collyer Bristow in accordance with the Order of Mr Justice Sales on 23 March 2012.

8.6 On 24 April 2012, Mr Justice Arnold ordered that the Company's application and the aforementioned claims be heard together.

8.7 Serious concerns remained as to how the Company would fund its on-going operations after the end of the SPL season (as no sale of the business had been agreed at that stage). The Club needed money to fund itself through the previously mentioned CVA (which was required to be completed before the start of the SPL season in August 2012). As such the Company submitted that the matter was still urgent and Merchant and Jerome agreed. As such, by an Order of Mr Justice Arnold on 24 April 2012, the Court ordered an expedited trial for a trial window between 1 and 31 October 2012.

RFC 2012 P.L.C. (Formerly The Rangers Football Club plc) (In Administration)

Final Progress Report to Creditors

27 September 2012

8.8 Subsequently, on 25 June 2012, Mr Gary Withey made an application to be joined to proceedings. Mr Withey was the company secretary of the Company and also a partner in Collyer Bristow. For reasons of cost and speed, the Company had not desired to sue Mr Withey. Further, Collyer Bristow made additional claims against Mr Craig Whyte, Liberty Capital Limited (a company controlled by Mr Whyte) and Merchant and sought their consolidation into the proceedings and then applied for security for its costs against the Company (“the Security Application”). As a result, it is not possible to maintain an October trial date as those new issues could not be resolved in time.

8.9 The solicitors acting for the Joint Administrators in the English proceedings are in continued correspondence with the solicitors acting for the other parties in the litigation to adjourn the case management conference listed for the 4 October 2012 and the above mentioned Security Application for costs.

8.10 The Joint Administrators consider that it is now expedient and in accordance with the wishes of HMRC that they seek their discharge from office and to hand over the conduct of the litigation to the proposed Joint Liquidators to enable them to dictate the on-going strategy for the litigation. It is proposed that the Joint Liquidators will take over the direction of the litigation once they have been appointed.

UEFA monies

8.11 The Joint Administrators continue to pursue sums due from UEFA which they consider to be due to the Company, as outlined in the last report to creditors. No recovery has yet been made from this source and the matter remains ongoing.

Merchant services retainer

8.12 The Joint Administrators still expect to receive a small balance of funds from the merchant services provider, First Data, subject to a reconciliation which is expected shortly, however it is likely that any realisations from this source will be made in the Liquidation.

Debtors

8.13 Since the Joint Administrators‟ last report, two receipts of £300,000 and £503,947 have been received.

8.14 The Joint Administrators, with the assistance of Newco as required, will continue to pursue the residual amounts. It should be noted that the majority of the outstanding ledger relates to two payments of £975,000 which fall due in May 2013 and May 2014 relating to the sale of Nikica Jelavić to Everton Football Club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Joint Administrators have continued to review the claims made by HMRC in the administration. The claims are largely made up of determinations issued by HMRC in accordance with Regulation 80, penalties and outstanding PAYE/NIC. The Joint Administrators have adjudicated on these claims and confirmed to HMRC that for voting purposes, their claim will be admitted for voting purposes at £94,426,217.22.

The fuck??? :anguish:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ticketus

13.9 The Joint Administrators have continued to investigate the claims made by Ticketus in the administration. The evidence available to the Joint Administrators suggests that the claims made by Ticketus against the Company are unenforceable. The Joint Administrators have taken advice from both solicitors and counsel in both England and Scotland on the validity or otherwise of the claims. The advice received is to the effect that there are a number of grounds on which the claims can be disputed in full. Following the legal advice received, the Joint Administrators consider that the claims made by Ticketus should be rejected in full for voting purposes. Ticketus have been given notice of this decision.

Ticketus not getting a single penny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12th October is when BDO will take control of Liquidating Oldco. :disappointment:

Can BDO question the sale of rangers? What I mean by questioning the sale is, can they come in and say D&P sold the assets for cheaper than the should have? If so what affect would that have on us now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hows that going to happen though if the oldco is liquidated? so really this means nothing now?

That's right. Effectively....going into Administration ended any chance of HMRC realising the potential of the sum outstanding. They've effectively stopped the Old Co trading, but may well pursue those responsible through court action if found guilty of breaking the rules.

That's my reading of the whole situation anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can BDO question the sale of rangers? What I mean by questioning the sale is, can they come in and say D&P sold the assets for cheaper than the should have? If so what affect would that have on us now?

Yes, they can, especially when there were other better bids came in......

And, you've got to remember, Green's crowd tried to buy Leeds just before us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they can, especially when there were other better bids came in......

And, you've got to remember, Green's crowd tried to buy Leeds just before us.

Better bids, what, that one from the 'Walter consortium' after the process had already been done? That offered about 500k profit? Think i'll beg to differ there, a bidding war for the new company route was not viable.

Timmy like to cling onto this idea of BDO reversing the sale but as far as I can see that would just put loads of people out of a job, cost the tax payer even more and leave a bunch of worthless assets that are only ever going to be used by a football club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Better bids, what, that one from the 'Walter consortium' after the process had already been done? That offered about 500k profit? Think i'll beg to differ there, a bidding war for the new company route was not viable.

Timmy like to cling onto this idea of BDO reversing the sale but as far as I can see that would just put loads of people out of a job, cost the tax payer even more and leave a bunch of worthless assets that are only ever going to be used by a football club.

Not Walters consortium, there was another 15 to 20m bid made at the last minute that D&D refused to look into.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 20 July 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Manchester United
      Murrayfield Stadium
      Friendly Match

×
×
  • Create New...