Lord Hodge declared that he was ‘very concerned’ by allegations made about the conduct of Duff & Phelps as the administration of Rangers was brought to an end with liquidators appointed.
Claims made by Craig Whyte about a conflict of interest involving Duff & Phelps were heard at the Court of Session in Edinburgh today.
A number of court actions remain on-going between the various parties in dispute with last weeks revelations from Whyte further clouding the issue with Lord Hodge ordering the BBC to provide a transcript of their interviews with the former billionaire.
Lord Hodge stated: “I have asked the BBC to provide me with a DVD of their allegations in May and October and may be requesting them to give a transcript of the entire telephone conversation so that I can see it in context.
“I may have to make a court order and if I do, I will give the BBC a chance to be represented.
“There may be a good answer to these allegations, but allegations are being ventilated which call into question the probity of proceedings.
“I think all this has to be in the open and cleared up. I am not taking any view as to who is right and who is wrong. There seems to be sense in letting the IPA do the running at this stage and let me see what they say in their report.”
The liquidation of the club is entirely separate from the Big Tax Case outcome which is expected to be announced this week with both parties involved already informed of the ruling.
Later this month an SPL enquiry will investigate claims that Rangers players received unregistered payments for more than a decade which could result in match results being overturned leading to the removal of honours from the record books.
CLICK HERE for Green: Rangers won’t be in SPL while I’m chief executive
Follow Video Celts on Twitter and Facebook
Lord Hodge, your honour, no need to be concerned. It’s very simple; they’re all a bunch of crooks.
Well done on starting the liquidation, the old ragers are officially dead, but keep digging, your lordship, highness, majesty, or whatever we plebs are supposed to call you, there’s plenty more dirt to be found.
THE END IS NIGH!
D.E.I.D.
Dead. Extinct. Inanimate. Deceased.
DEID.
Since Benny Hill died I’ve never laughed so much as I have over the stupidity of the bears fans not letting go of the rotting corpse that is Rangers FC.
Gettin close to midnight ,somethings lurkíng at the door
Is it HMRC , Ticketus or more
The time has come to cease ,for the great obese
No pies ,no skill ,no cash
tis the end of the sash
And so wee Lenny moves on
The days of old-firm gone
and when wee Lennys’ done They’ll say ”that was Celtics son”
gubbed 3-0 as well, what a great halloween,just need chucky to head into the hills with the shares money
A sad, sad day for Glasgow Rangers!!!
But
A JOYOUS AND HAPPY DAY FOR FOOTBALL THROUGHOUT THE WORLD!!!!
oh….. and SUPER CALLY WENT BALLISTIC!!
gie’s the HEADLINE Traynor
Super Sally went ballistic sevco are attroucious
Hodge should have ordered Duff and Melt be publically flogged by Turnbull Hutton and Alex Thompson!
I’m glad he’s concerned. He should be!
The sale of Ibrox, the car park, Murray park and all the other assets from Duff & Phelps to the “consortium” were not legitimate and it will be the liquidators job to investigate the cosy arrangement between Sir David Murray, Duff & Phelps, Craig Whyte and Charles Green. Let us see if the liquidator thinks they are allowed to offload 10’s of millions of debt by declaring itself a different company whilst at the same time claiming to be the same company using the same logo and name. The legal rules regarding administration and liquidation of companies clearly state this is not allowed, and if it is allowed, it will be open season for any other business to join the bandwagon and do the same.
Can anyone be allowed to run a business for 10 years without paying bills or taxes, then when your credit line is stopped, bring in your friends to “administer” the debts, sell off the assets on the cheap to your friends, create a smoke screen and pretend the new buyers are not your friends but are your enemies, then run the new business as if it’s still the same business that you’ve just had liquidated, minus the debts of course, and make free money by putting this new business on the “alternative” stock exchange, hoping you can find 20 million pounds from gullible people who can ill afford to lose their money. Somehow I can’t see the liquidator allowing this to happen, but if it is allowed, it will only show how corrupt the UK has become and will set a precedent for others to follow.
Sevconians can’t seem to understand the law is the law no matter what team you support. An important aspect of the liquidation work is to investigate the company’s affairs and recover any assets that are missing, or have been transferred at undervalue out of the company. These transactions can be reversed by the liquidator. Consider that Duff & Phelps were appointed by Craig Whyte who then sold the Rangers FC assets 2 days after the CVA was refused by the creditors.
The assets were not put out for bidding on the open market to ensure maximum returns for the creditors, all the business was conducted behind closed doors. Consider Charles Green openly says the assets are worth around 80 million. Do you not think it will be the liquidator’s duty to represent the creditors and investigate this asset sale? Were the assets sold undervalue? Charles Green has openly admitted they have! Transferring assets at less than their value may constitute fraud. Duff & Phelps could face criminal charges.
In addition, transfers of the company’s assets shortly before the onset of insolvency may constitute a preference or undervalue transaction and be overturned by the court at the request of the creditors. Do you think the creditors will sit passively by when so many millions of pounds are at stake? Not only will the asset sale be scrutinised and investigated, the law restricts the re-use of a company name of a company previously gone into liquidation (section 216 of the Insolvancy Act 1986).
The name which can’t be used is known as the “prohibited name” A “prohibited name” is a name by which the liquidated company was known at any time in the 12 months prior to liquidation, whether this is its registered name at company house, it’s trading name, or any name so similar to the liquidated company’s trading or registered name as to suggest an association with the liquidated company. It is therefore very clear the legal insolvency rules are being broken openly and brazenly by Charles Green and his “consortium”. Whether they get away with this will remain to be seen.
Important warning to Charles Green and his consortium: Section 216 of the insolvency act states it is illegal to use the same name or associate any new business with a liquidated business. If you contravene section 216 of the act you are committing a criminal offence. You may be prosecuted by the Department of Business Innovation and Skills and you could go to prison if you are prosecuted.
In addition, under section 217 of the act, you could be made personally liable for the debts incurred during the time that you were managing a business using a prohibited name, even if it was a limited company. This could happen whether you are prosecuted under section 216 or not. Warning to Ally McCoist: Even if you are not contravening section 216 of the Act, you will be personally liable for the debts of a company if you are involved in managing a business and you act on instructions from someone you know is contravening section 216. Pleading ignorance is not a valid defence.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/pdfs/guidanceleafletspdf/reuseofcompanyname.pdf
Great post. I hope and pray that Lord Hodge sees things in the same way. If he does, once he’s finished, real justice will have been done.
Excellent post Thai Tim. I’ve been preaching the same view to the currant buns I know, but just like they did when I told them liquidation was inevitable over a year ago, they deny and mock because they are too inept to understand the concepts.
I personally hope ally mccoist takes a fall for this because he has shown his true colours with his outing of the Tribunal anel members’ names. Sad little fat man.
Tis so funny to listen to green and his idea of a share prospectus. That guy couldn’t put together a successful share issue in a million years.
Ohh how the manky have fallen haha.
Well deserving of a wider audience!
Thai Tim, great post but a reversal of the rangers to sevco deal will not happen neither will any action be taken over the rangers name.
This country does not have the stomach for the battle, regardless of the rights and wrongs and regardless of what the law says!
I tend to agree with you Gerry. But on the other hand the tax office will not take too kindly to be conned out of 86 milion pounds and do you think Ticketus will sit idly buy and accept a 26 million pound loss? Hmmm?
Maybe we should all write to the government department asking why the law regarding section 216 of the Insolvancy Act 1986 is being blatantly broken by sevco? http://www.bis.gov.uk/contact/business
Excellent post as usual Thai Tim.
Just curious. Where in Thailand are you based?
I’ve lived on Koh Phangan for almost 10 years, but i’m in Bangkok this week visiting the Mrs family.
Cha Am
Super post Thai Tim. You should request a guest post of this on Paul McConville’s excellent blog site.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/
I agree they should priorities the other people. Thanks for sharing this article.
Yes indeed! people should be aware about liquidation process. Gladly that i read this article.