BDO proceed with conspiracy charges against Collyer Bristow

[ian1964 10,416]

The liquidators of Rangers FC have pledged to proceed with conspiracy charges against the old clubâ??s former law firm, Collyer Bristow.

 

 

Litigation, which was due to culminate in a High Court trial in the new year, had been on hold while liquidators at BDO assessed the merits of proceeding with the claim.

 

The action was initially brought by the administrators of Rangers FC, Duff & Phelps partners Paul Clark and David Whitehouse, who alleged that the firm was involved in a â??deliberate deceptionâ? in relation to former partner Gary Witheyâ??s role in businessman Craig Whyteâ??s 2011 takeover of the club.

 

The administrators instructed Taylor Wessing restructuring partners Nick Moser and Neil Smyth to pursue the £25m damages claim.

 

In a statement released today, BDO partners Malcolm Cohen and James Stephen confirmed that they will continue any legal proceedings already initiated by the administrators.

 

Cohen said: â??As joint interim liquidators, our prime objective is to maximise returns to creditors. By investigating the reasons for the companyâ??s failure, weâ??ll better understand the avenues available to enable the recovery of all possible monies for creditors.

 

â??This is a complex case with many potential areas for us to investigate, which weâ??ll do thoroughly in accordance with our duties and powers. Our investigations will, of course, include the conduct of those responsible for the financial affairs of the company in previous years.â?

 

However, BDO will not use Taylor Wessing for the litigation but will instruct its own firm, though it declined to reveal who that is.

 

Collyer Bristow, which has pledged to â??vigorously defendâ? the accusations, has instructed Clyde & Co partner Richard Harrison and senior associate Nicole McKinnon to defend the claim, with 3VBâ??s Cyril Kinsky QC and Matthew Hardwick and Wilberforce Chambersâ?? Ian Croxford QC as counsel.

 

Withey has labelled the allegations â??groundlessâ? and an â??outrageâ? while Collyer Bristow business development director Paul Newhall said the proceedings were paused as the firm is waiting for a response from BDO on security of costs. He said: â??Our position remains unchanged and weâ??ll defend vigorously the claims brought by Duff & Phelps.â?

 

Rangers has since been reformed as a â??newcoâ?? and announced its intentions to float with a £20m IPO. Field Fisher Waterhouse and Travers Smith are instructed (11 October 2012).

 

 

http://www.thelawyer.com/rangers-fc-...15384.article?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Collier Bristow conspired against us. with d&p and whyte of course.

 

so why didn't d&p sue d&p?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Collier Bristow conspired against us. with d&p and whyte of course.

 

so why didn't d&p sue d&p?

[der Berliner 3,247]

You think you read a text made by law-folk, only to stumble over the first line ...

 

The liquidators of Rangers FC have ...

 

... and think . Why should I put any sort of attention to people spilling insights into this who cannot get the simplest of facts correct?

[simplythebest 0]

Collier Bristow conspired against us. with d&p and whyte of course.

 

so why didn't d&p sue d&p?

BDO must be satisfied that isn't the case.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I doubt they are that daft. everyone knows d&p knew everything Collier Bristow did.

[simplythebest 0]

I doubt they are that daft. everyone knows d&p knew everything Collier Bristow did.

 

So why have they not dropped this case started by D&P?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

So why have they not dropped this case started by D&P?

 

because collyer Bristow are guilty as sin. but d&p were in as deep as them.

[frost 0]

So that was the nature of the work done by Duff and Phelps/MCR. But was it â??significantâ???

 

If we return to the list of factors to be taken into account in considering that question, Duff and Phelps would have had to consider additionally the fee they had received for their prior engagements, the impact of their work on the financial stability of RFC (if any), and whether their appointment as administrators would require them to review the work they had carried out during 2011. They would have been clear that an appointment as administrator would carry an obligation to report on the conduct of their former client, Craig Whyte.

 

There can be little doubt that the Ticketus deal would have had a significant impact on the future financial stability of the club. Future revenue had been diverted to pay off historic debt to Lloyds Banking Group.

 

The question of whether Grier knew that Whyte was relying on money from Ticketus to fund his acquisition is important because it implies a far closer relationship between the parties than was suggested by the original Report to Creditors, in other words, more significant in a regulatory sense.

 

Such knowledge would also make it difficult to attack the Ticketus transaction. Duff and Phelps vigorously denied that Mr Grier or any other party in the firm had any such knowledge and raised proceedings against Mr Whyteâ??s former lawyers in this regard. However, Collyer Bristow are threatening to cite Mr Grier as a party to the action precisely because he knew about the structure of the deal. Duff and Phelps may therefore find themselves in the bizarre position of suing themselves.

 

Insolvency is inherently unfair. Because there is not enough money to pay everyone who is owed by the insolvent entity, there are always losers in the process. Some people will get more than others. It is therefore essential that any insolvency process is conducted with openness and transparency and that the law which underpins the process and determines who the winners and losers will be, is applied fairly.

 

There's also a public interest argument. Those who are losers in the process have to be assured that the conduct of those who were responsible for the affairs of the company before its insolvency is investigated objectively. If the investigations reveal wrong doing or negligence in the conduct of the company's business then appropriate action has to be taken and the relevant sanctions applied.

 

Insolvency practitioners have to be able to demonstrate that they are sufficiently objective to bring the full scrutiny of the law to bear on those who were in charge of a company prior to its failure. If they cannot do so, public confidence in the process is undermined and that helps no-one.

 

It is not for us to determine whether Duff and Phelps should or should not have accepted the appointment or whether the steps they took before doing so were sufficient to deal with perceptions of conflict of interest. Presumably they have applied the tests in the Code and are satisfied with the outcome. However, they are now answerable to both their regulator and to Lord Hodge, Scotlandâ??s senior insolvency judge. There will be a number of people who will have an interest in the outcome.

[RANGERRAB 3,258]

The people who caused the demise of the oldco were LBG IMO. Fullerton & Kane were in charge of LBG Scottish business division at the time(guess who they support?). Don't listen to Bill McMurdo's blog where Fullerton convinced McMurdo he had nothing to do with Rangers bank accounts. Aye Right. If it wasn't wasn't Fullerton & Kane did they put someone up to it within LBG ? i.e. destroy Rangers ? Don't believe a word from Fullerton & Kane.

 

We need to estabish whether SDM was blackmailed into selling to CW. For that reason alone I believe LBG have many questions to answer not least Fullerton & Kane.

Edited November 6, 2012 by RANGERRAB