I take it everyone is familiar with rule 2 of the TOP code sub 2.6 being particularly relevant, there again perhaps people aren't aware of it. 

3 hours ago, craig said:

Surely you can see that your the mentioning of a NOMAD and public offering in your original post could be read as you suggesting we needed a NOMAD ?  Maybe you didn't mean that but it's more than just a tad plausible for other forum members to take that as your meaning.

No I was pretty clear between a rights issue here which is private and a public issue. which is of course self explanatory and requires a nomad and a listing. 

6 hours ago, alskoosher said:

Isn't the proposed issue a rights issue for selected existing shareholders enabling purchase of future share issues shares at a discount.

Isn't a NOMAD and all that goes with it required for any public offering ?

 

1 hour ago, rbr said:

No he's being 100% accurate 

Yes I was being 100% accurate.

41 minutes ago, forlanssister said:

A NOMAD isn't needed for anything other than a company listed on the AIM market last time I looked we weren't on AIM.

 

There isn't going to be another Public issue of shares in RIFC plc it would be a pointless and futile exercise, a NOMAD is a total irrelevance to RIFC plc.

I believe you are being deliberately obtuse, there I leave it.

11 minutes ago, forlanssister said:

Neither a listing nor NOMAD are required for a rights issue.

Why are you changing the narrative, I quite clearly stated Public issue and addressed the Rights issue earlier.

1 hour ago, forlanssister said:

NOMAD's are only required for companies on the AIM market, we are not on the AIM market we do not need a NOMAD, so find another stick with which to beat King.

Correct, that is why there will be no public issue, we have neither a listing nor a NOMAD.

No stick required.

Isn't the proposed issue a rights issue for selected existing shareholders enabling purchase of future share issues shares at a discount.

Isn't a NOMAD and all that goes with it required for any public offering ?

Y’day was absolutely turgid again, got the points and in this case that is all that matters.

Strangely some ITK are claiming that tomorrow’s presser has nothing to do with investment.

2-0

25 minutes ago, ian1964 said:

It's an exciting appointment and will give us worldwide exposure and great for Scottish football, and Hummel will be rubbing their hands, all good! however SG is still a rookie manager! let's hope he can hit the ground running as he will be up against the Scottish gutter press who will attack him at every opportunity, his first loss/draw he will find out how much Rangers are hated in Scotland!.

Pretty sure SG showed yesterday that he is more than a match for the press, he controlled them and ran the narrative in the direction he wanted to go, looks like the days of being trampled by the press are finally over, at least from the manager's office.

I have the feeling that he is going to be a tremendous success for us, so much so that I going to place a bet on us winning the league next season, I believe he will bring experienced players who may be nearing the end of their careers, but still well above anything this league has to offer, also with some promising youngsters too.

Why would they have resigned to make way for anyone, is there suddenly a limit on the number of directors we can have.

54 minutes ago, aweebluesoandso said:

Who's Barry Scott? Shame about Paul Murray though, i always thought he was true blue.

Recently announced director Barry Scott, a Hong Kong-based businessman, has also been afforded the same title in the club’s ‘People with Significant Control’ register with Companies House.

In the document, it is stated that “The person has the right to exercise, or actually exercises, significant influence or control over the company.”

42 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

I really don't understand.  What is the interdict element you're referring to?  What are they prohibiting?  Isn't this just reinforcement of the ToP's view?  I'd do the same if I was in that organisation but I'm struggling to see why this court order is so material.  Am I missing something?

They are prohibiting Laird from making any offer, king has to make it as he was ordered to by the court and he must produce evidence of cleared funds from a 3rd party.

Interesting development. 

https://Rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/paul-murray-and-barry-scott

Rangers International Football Club PLC (RIFC) notify the resignation of two directors, Mr Paul Murray and Mr Barry Scott. 

Paul has been a director since March 2015 and played an important role at that time in helping oust the previous Board and restore the Club to the hands of those who have its best interests at heart.

Paul has served with distinction as a director since that time and all at Rangers are very grateful for his efforts. We look forward to welcoming him again as a supporter.

Barry joined the Board more recently and his enthusiasm and drive were welcome. The Board knows it will continue to enjoy his support and appreciates the commitment he has shown to the Club.

8 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

Somehow I have a feeling that not all is koosher with you. But each to his/her own.

I have absolutely no interest in your feelings, kosher or otherwise.

You can change the thread title all you like interdict was sought and granted.

PETITION DEPARTMENT
UNSTARRED MOTIONS
P418/18 Pet: The Panel on takeovers and mergers for interdict – Dentons

Of course it isn't, that is why TOP applied for and received interdict, however you have it your way. 

CoS grants interdict, as title 

Regulator gets court orders forcing Dave King to make £11m Rangers shares bid with cleared funds

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16197753.Regulator_gets_court_orders_forcing_Dave_King_to_make___11m_Rangers_shares_bid_with_cleared_funds/

26 minutes ago, Calgacus said:

No they are not interdicts are a negative remedy designed to prevent an activity or course of conduct. They can not be used to enforce a positive obligation.

I am going to leave this here, king has consequences to face and face them he will.

The process of interdict is quasi criminal, and if the party who has been interdicted fails to observe the terms of the interdict, once notified of it, he is liable to summary punishment, which can include a fine or imprisonment. In a recent case before the Court of Session Paul Mackenzie was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment for his repeated breach of an interim interdict and interdict obtained against him. In sentencing him the Court referred to his "wilful defiance" of the Court's orders and "that only a prison sentence would adequately mark the gravity and circumstances of the breaches". A reminder not only of the consequences of ignoring the court but also how useful the order can be in protecting rights.

2 minutes ago, buster. said:

So when you wrote  "...the perception is..."

Whose perception is it or where exactly did you come accross it ?

 

Given, there are many tens of thousands of legal experts that have sprung up in the west of Scotland in recent years.

I didn't come across it we use it every day or most days.You will be wiser soon enough, I have no intention of getting into any argument about a clear breach of a court order by king, he has consequences to face. 

12 minutes ago, buster. said:

Is it your opinion or is it what you said "...the perception is..." ?

 

 

No it isn't my opinion, interdicts are sought to enforce the protection of the rights of those affected by the miscreants actions, also to enforce the consequences of not complying with a court order, amazing how many think king is above the law in any country. 

So you think Txiki isn't a measure of success, how novel.

2 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

 

You will need to be more specific than that.

Should be specific enough Txiki Begiristain

Just now, buster. said:

Whose perception,.....The Huddleboard ?

The perception of what an interdict is and whom it protects, the TOP made it perfectly clear that they would take all measures to ensure compliance, after king failed to comply with the order.