An investigation into Duff and Phelps has begun after a BBC documentary made claims of a conflict of interest involving the Rangers administrators.
‘Rangers- The Men Who Sold The Jerseys’ provided details of who had benefited from the controversial Employee Benefit Trust scheme but also highlighted the role of David Grier- a senior partner in Duff and Phelps.
The BBC documentary showed e-mails from Grier about the role played by Ticketus in Craig Whyte’s takeover and also revealed that Grier was at a dinner to celebrate the former billionaire’s takeover of the club.
Duff and Phelps were appointed as administrators by Whyte in February but were unable to save the club who are in the process of being liquidated after failing to come up with an acceptable CVA for creditors.
At the Court of Session in Edinburgh Lord Hodge said: “There is considerable public interest in this jurisdiction in relation to the administration.
“I do not want the administration to come to an end without having received that report.”
The report is expected to be with Lord Hodge in three weeks.
Following the programme and follow up material on the BBC website Duff and Phelps claimed that they were considering legal action on the allegations.
Responding to today’s developments David Whitehouse of Duff and Phelps said: “We welcome the decision by Lord Hodge today.
“Producing this report for Lord Hodge will give us an opportunity to demonstrate that the allegation of conflict of interest by the BBC was wrong and grossly irresponsible.
“We have a well-established conflict checking procedure which was fully adhered to and there was no reason for us not to accept the role as administrators.”
CLICK HERE for Romanov says NO to newco
Follow Video Celts on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube
I think ive been duped! is duped the right word yes i think it is, i was duped but who cares im a billionaire and celtic legend hail hail
Tick Tock Tick Tock Tick Tock
Its so obvious Craig Whyte, Duff & Phelps and Green are all in cahoots together, conspiring to defraud the creditors whilst obtaining a debtless football team without using any of their money.
To avoid a criminal offence taking place, Mr Green, The Scottish Media, The SFA and SPL should be aware of the following:
The law prohibits the re-use of a name of a company previously gone into liquidation, (section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986). A prohibited name is a name by which the liquidated company was known at any time in the 12 months immediately before liquidation: whether this is a registered name at Companies House, or its trading name, or any name so similar to its registered or trading name as to suggest an association with the liquidated company. It is a criminal offence to contravene section 216 of the Insolvency Act. Anyone contravening the Act may be prosecuted by the Department of Business Innovation and Skills and could go to prison if convicted. In addition, under section 217 of the Act, you could be made personally liable for the debts incurred during the time that you were involved in managing a business using a prohibited name, even if it was a limited company. This could happen whether you are prosecuted under section 216 of the Act or not.
Ally McCoist should be aware of the following:
Even if you are not contravening Section 216 of the Act, you will be personally responsible for the debts of the company if you are involved in managing a business and you act on instructions from someone you know who is contravening Section 216. This is because you are helping someone to commit a criminal offence by contravening Section 216.
Reference: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/pdfs/guidanceleafletspdf/reuseofcompanyname.pdf