Board made aware of more links between Green and Whyte

[barca72 440]

Do you remember the monies found laying in the Collyer Bristow client account?

 

Specifically the circa £3m attributed to the Jerome Pension Fund well that belongs to the pensioners of the Worthington Group.

 

Here's the last paragraph of the Interim Financial Statement issued by the Worthington Group plc on 29 November 2012.

 

The Jerome Company is a subsidiary of Worthingtons. I don't know the specifics of the loan they speak of, but it sounds like Whyte tried to make restitution of the loan when he took over Rangers Plc 2012 and Duff&Phelps blocked it. Irrespective this has nothing to do with RIFC as any debts belonging to The Rangers Football Group ( Whyte's holding Co ) are wiped out by liquidation. That means there is no tie in to Sevco 5088 or RIFC.

[forlanssister 3,050]

FS - Is there any connection between the £3m pension fund mentioned in the 2nd paragraph and RFC ?

 

cheers

 

It was part of the money found in the Collyer Bristow client account on behalf of the RFC Group Ltd (Wavetower).

 

IIRC D&P, HMRC , Merchant House Group (for all intents and purposes Whyte) and Worthington Group plc (again Whyte) are all claiming the money, IIRC D&P dropped the claim in order to sue Collyer Bristow for £25m (now being psued by BDO albeit through a different set of solicitors).

[forlanssister 3,050]

The Jerome Company is a subsidiary of Worthingtons. I don't know the specifics of the loan they speak of, but it sounds like Whyte tried to make restitution of the loan when he took over Rangers Plc 2012 and Duff&Phelps blocked it. Irrespective this has nothing to do with RIFC as any debts belonging to The Rangers Football Group ( Whyte's holding Co ) are wiped out by liquidation. That means there is no tie in to Sevco 5088 or RIFC.

 

It formed part of Whyte's original "proof of funds".

 

Whyte tried to make restitution ? You mean he tried to regain control of it surely?

 

Any action Whyte raises will not be in relation to any debt as you're claiming above, but rather on Craig Whyte's claim that he was an equitable owner of Sevco 5088.

[barca72 440]

You're absolutely correct in terms of any Worthington Group legal action. It's not going to be Worthington Group Vs Rangers. It would most likely be Worthington Group Vs Green & Ahmad. The problem is those two alone account for a 12.5% shareholding in Rangers.

 

Then if you take into account how the ownership of Sevco5088 in the event Worthington's claim is successful, you'd be looking at other members of the original takeover consortium and how their shareholding may be affected by the proceedings, then it's potentially a disaster for Rangers.

 

You're also right that just because they say they've been advised of a prima facie case to answer, doesn't mean anythnig has been decided. Whyte has an appaling courtroom record in all of this and on his own I don't think he'd stand much of a chance. I also don't think the Earley brothers would bring much to table on that front. Other parties involved in Worthington Group might however make a difference in this case.

 

The connection between Whyte and Worthington is irrefutable and ongoing.

 

All Whyte did last week was move money out of one company associated with him to another under the guise of selling the film rights etc, it the sort of thing he's ( and Earley) always done.

 

I'm inclined to think Whyte is banking on the nuisance value of any claim of his but to rule out the possibility that any of his claims has validity would be a foolish act.

 

This has a long way to run yet.

 

It took 9 years to complete the liquidation of Whyte's Vital UK Ltd.

 

Let's back up a little. The original opinion was that Whyte/Worthington were going to come after RIFC and this would be a disaster for us. I am trying to show that Whyte can NOT come after RIFC. UCF2008, before Worthington can take up the case for Sevco 5088, Whyte has to prove he owns it. Forlanssister I am not, in my opinion, ruling out the fact that Whyte's claims have no validity. I am, however, saying that Whyte will have to prove that he does indeed own Sevco 5088 for it to be a subsidiary of Law Financial Ltd.

I think he will have great difficulty in proving such a claim. We can go into legal arguments if you wish. The upshot is, that after proving Sevco 5088 is indeed his subsidiary, what would be his claim against RIFC? He could attempt to prove that Charles Green/Imran Ahmad had somehow through deception defrauded him out of the assets sold to them by Duff & Phelps ( to Sevco 5088 then transferred to Sevco Scotland - and that would be another court case to prove that ). His only settlement if successful would be a monetary compensation from Green /Ahmad. If they choose to settle this compensation debt by assigning their shares in RIFC to Whyte, then he could possibly gain a shareholding in RIFC. However, we have to keep in mind the SFA's ruling that Whyte cannot have any connection to any team in Scottish football so I don't know how that would play. Even before any case about Sevco 5088 reaches a court, we may find that the investigation by Police Scotland may be completed and Whyte may face criminal charges over the Ticketus-bankrolled buy out of Rangers Plc. It is my understanding, and I may stand to be corrected here, that any director of a company which has been liquidated or dissolved would be barred from owning another company for a period of time. If you look at the legal thinking which Whyte put up in his defence in the recent Ticketus case, and which the judge discarded point by point through quoting previous case law, you begin to see how deluded this man is. Anyway, I am of the opinion that the Worthington chairman is only interested in buying LFL to obtain the media rights to Whyte's supposed book and movies. 250K seems reasonable to perhaps gain a few extra million.

[barca72 440]

It formed part of Whyte's original "proof of funds".

 

Whyte tried to make restitution ? You mean he tried to regain control of it surely?

 

Any action Whyte raises will not be in relation to any debt as you're claiming above, but rather on Craig Whyte's claim that he was an equitable owner of Sevco 5088.

 

You're speaking of two different things here. If, as you say, the 3M pounds was loaned to Whyte as part of his proof of funds, then when I say he tried to make restitution of these funds I mean that when he obtained control of Rangers Plc he tried to use the money belonging to Rangers Plc, or now renamed to The Rangers Football Group. Duff & Phelps when they took over the administration of the club discovered this repayment of the 3M pounds and ringfenced it legally. All that has nothing to do with any legal action Whyte may take with regard to Sevco 5088. I never stated that Whyte would take any legal action as regards restitution of the loan.

[forlanssister 3,050]

Forlanssister I am not, in my opinion, ruling out the fact that Whyte's claims have no validity. I am, however, saying that Whyte will have to prove that he does indeed own Sevco 5088 for it to be a subsidiary of Law Financial Ltd.

 

i assume the no was a typo.

 

Of course he'll have to prove he has equitable ownership of Sevco 5088 in order for everything else to follow.

 

I think he will have great difficulty in proving such a claim. We can go into legal arguments if you wish. The upshot is, that after proving Sevco 5088 is indeed his subsidiary, what would be his claim against RIFC? He could attempt to prove that Charles Green/Imran Ahmad had somehow through deception defrauded him out of the assets sold to them by Duff & Phelps ( to Sevco 5088 then transferred to Sevco Scotland - and that would be another court case to prove that ). His only settlement if successful would be a monetary compensation from Green /Ahmad. If they choose to settle this compensation debt by assigning their shares in RIFC to Whyte, then he could possibly gain a shareholding in RIFC.

 

Whyte is after money he doesn't give a f*&k where it comes from.

 

However, we have to keep in mind the SFA's ruling that Whyte cannot have any connection to any team in Scottish football so I don't know how that would play.

 

It's simply not in the SFA's power to prevent Whyte from owning shares in a plc. Assuming he does obtain a shareholding in RIFC then the consequences for the club could be potentially catastrophic.

 

Even before any case about Sevco 5088 reaches a court, we may find that the investigation by Police Scotland may be completed and Whyte may face criminal charges over the Ticketus-bankrolled buy out of Rangers Plc.

 

I concur

 

It is my understanding, and I may stand to be corrected here, that any director of a company which has been liquidated or dissolved would be barred from owning another company for a period of time.

 

I think your incorrect in that summation.

 

If you look at the legal thinking which Whyte put up in his defence in the recent Ticketus case, and which the judge discarded point by point through quoting previous case law, you begin to see how deluded this man is.

 

Whyte's defence was basically an admission of "financial assistance" then blaming Ticketus for allowing him to commit "financial assistance", his written submission of defence should be available somewhere. (That's a different document from the judgement of Master Marsh btw)

 

I know he's deluded, I know he's an amoral sociopath but alas that doesn't always mean the side of law and justice will fall automatically against him.

 

Anyway, I am of the opinion that the Worthington chairman is only interested in buying LFL to obtain the media rights to Whyte's supposed book and movies. 250K seems reasonable to perhaps gain a few extra million.

 

I doubt it was anything other than shifting money out of Worthington Group to another Whyte/Earley company in advance of it going tits up, it lacks sufficient assets to make good the pension deficit if loses the case for the return of the Collyer Bristow client account money.

[barca72 440]

Okay FS I think that apart from arguing a few points of semantics we are pretty much agreed on the status of Whyte and his activities. For me the point of the whole thing was the original OP press article and the gross exagerations and foolish links it throws out there. By the reaction of fellow bears this seems to cause discomfort and to some a bit of stress. I think where we can we should debunk this nonsense, and bring down the level of anxiety. The last point I would like to clear up that may be hanging there is this "However, we have to keep in mind the SFA's ruling that Whyte cannot have any connection to any team in Scottish football so I don't know how that would play." I know that since we are a publicly floated company Whyte could if he wanted, just go and buy shares. Even at that I don't think he would cause us problems as a shareholder. What prompted that comment was my interpretation of this Article of the SFA. It gives you a sore head reading it, but we know from experience how Regan and crew have strange interpretations of rules when handing out sanctions. Remember now that the SFA have ruled Whyte as an undesireable person ( or words to that effect ). viz:

 

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2012-13/SFA_HANDBOOK_53-

136_Articles_of_Association.pdf

ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION

13.4 The Scottish FA is authorised to request full disclosure of the identity of all of the shareholders of a member and details of all beneficial interests represented by any such shareholder and all members and other relevant persons under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA will be required to meet all such requests without delay. Failure to do so will constitute a breach of these Articles and the Judicial Panel will have jurisdiction to deal with any such breach and to impose sanctions in relation to it.

13.5 For the purposes of this Article 13:

(a) “club” means any club in membership of the Scottish FA and any club in membership of an association in membership of UEFA and/or FIFA;

(b) “person” includes any body corporate and a partnership;

© “associate” means:-

(i) if the person referred to is an individual,

(1) a close relative of that individual, including that individual’s spouse, common law spouse, civil partner, parent, step parent, child, stepchild, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece, or a child or stepchild of such parent or spouse, common law spouse or civil partner or anyone else of a close relationship to that individual who in the opinion of the Board is or is likely to be acting in conjunction with that individual;

(2) any company of which that individual or a close relative of such individual is a director or over which that individual or a close relative of such individual is able to exercise control or influence; and

(3) any individual who is an employee or partner of that individual or a close relative of any such employee or partner; and

(ii) if the person referred to or any associate of that person is a body corporate,

(1) any other body corporate associated with it either through the holding of shares in it or by reason of control by contract or other form of agreement;

(2) any director or employee of that body corporate or other associated body corporate or any close relative of any such director or employee; and

(3) where any person has an agreement or arrangement, whether legally binding or not, with any other person in relation to the exercise of his voting power in a club or in relation to the holding or disposal of his interest in such club, that other person; and

(d) “member” means involvement directly or indirectly (and whether as principal, trustee, nominee, beneficiary or in any other capacity) in a club as a shareholder, holder of options over any share, holder of convertible loans or securities or any like instrument; member of a company limited by guarantee; the holder of an interest in any unincorporated voluntary association; or as possessor of any other right of ownership or control in relation to a club.

13.6 In considering whether to give any such consent as may be required by this Article 13, the Board shall have regard to the need to promote and safeguard the interests and public profile of Association Football, its players, spectators and others concerned with the game and shall have regard also to these Articles, the rules and regulations of the Scottish FA and to the constitution and rules of those bodies of which the Scottish FA is in membership and, accordingly, any such consent shall be subject to such conditions as the Board shall consider appropriate in all the circumstances.

 

I don't know if you'll come up with anything concrete but good luck. Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

[UCF2008 0]

UCF2008, before Worthington can take up the case for Sevco 5088, Whyte has to prove he owns it.

 

Read the statement from Worthington Group again. It makes it pretty clear they believe that Sevco 5088 is part of the package. It's top of their list of LFL assets. I expect they'll be fighting Whytes corner without Whyte needing to prove anything beforehand.

[forlanssister 3,050]

Okay FS I think that apart from arguing a few points of semantics we are pretty much agreed on the status of Whyte and his activities.

 

On the whole that's a fair enough summation,

 

For me the point of the whole thing was the original OP press article and the gross exagerations and foolish links it throws out there. By the reaction of fellow bears this seems to cause discomfort and to some a bit of stress.

 

Whilst I agree the tabloid style of the article doesn't do it any favours I wouldn't so easily dismiss the links therein though considering (part of) its' apparent origins that may appear a touch Mandy Rice Davies-ish...... Any reasonably minded bear should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff fairly painlessly enough.

 

I think where we can we should debunk this nonsense, and bring down the level of anxiety.

 

Perhaps, but people should be careful not to dismiss everything out of hand particularly if it's simply because they dislike the message or the messenger. The Worthington Group connection I first posted about last June being one example, whilst it may have been dismissed as of little relevance last June it's not so easily dismissed after the events of last week.

 

The last point I would like to clear up that may be hanging there is this "However, we have to keep in mind the SFA's ruling that Whyte cannot have any connection to any team in Scottish football so I don't know how that would play." I know that since we are a publicly floated company Whyte could if he wanted, just go and buy shares. Even at that I don't think he would cause us problems as a shareholder. What prompted that comment was my interpretation of this Article of the SFA. It gives you a sore head reading it, but we know from experience how Regan and crew have strange interpretations of rules when handing out sanctions. Remember now that the SFA have ruled Whyte as an undesireable person ( or words to that effect ). viz:

 

The constant rants of Mad Vlad prove just how impotent the SFA are when it comes to punishing owners, however when it comes to punishing clubs mere technicalities such as their own rules or the law of the land prove no barrier to them, that I fear is where we will find ourselves if Whyte can prove any or all of his claims (which I think is a very,very remote possibility), at the mercy of the SFA , the potential ramifications are such that they simply cannot afford to be totally discounted.

 

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

 

Likewise!

[SteveC 150]

Thanks to you both. You have unmuddied some waters for me.