Whyte reappointed as director of Sevco 5088

[andy steel 0]

I stand ready to be corrected, but is it Companies House who appoint directors? I thought they were more a directory than an actual appointments body.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Blundell will tell us but I think they are a bit more than a director. A regulator may be more like it.

[Bluedell 5,346]

I stand ready to be corrected, but is it Companies House who appoint directors? I thought they were more a directory than an actual appointments body.

 

You are correct. Changes in directorships need to be registered with Companies House within 14 days IIRC.

[pollok-loyal 0]

Is this something we should be worried about?

[der Berliner 3,255]

On paper, Rangers were bought by Sevco Scotland. Whyte can happily go after Green and Ahmad and Co., the club and company as such should be safe from his grasp, whereas he should be behind bars for months ...

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Sure but the agreement we all saw in black and white was for Sevco5088 to buy us. We can only hope that agreement wasn't binding or was got out of correctly.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Is this something we should be worried about?

 

IMHO not us no. Green maybe

[Frankie 8,153]

This looks like a well-informed post from Marty101 on FF vis-à-vis this issue:

 

The CVA agreement specifically involved Sevco 5088, but the terms of the fall back business and asset purchase were kept secret. It's possible that the agreement in that event was that a different company would take title for some reason. In any event, even if it wasn't, it was open to Sevco 5088 to nominate another company to take title, or to assign its rights to another company. To that extent, there's nothing unlawful in the change from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland.

 

Whyte is continuing to seek to assert his position as a director in Sevco 5088 for a reason though. He must believe this gives him some sort of leverage (his actions do also strongly suggest he doesn't have any say in the running of The Rangers Football Club Ltd / Sevco Scotland Ltd and/or Rangers International Football Club PLC.)

 

Whyte has no direct claim on the Rangers assets. Any direct claim Whyte has is against Green / Ahmed. Sevco 5088 might have a claim on the Rangers Assets though, if it were to be shown that Sevco 5088 never agreed to the assignation or nomination of the other company to take the assets. In that event the other company would have gained unjustified enrichment at the expense of Sevco 5088.

 

Sevco 5088 acts via its directors. It seems to me Sevco 5088's claim fails if it can be shown that a director of the company instructed the assignation/nomination of the other company. Green was a director at the relevant time (whether Whyte was or not), and so could have authorised the change in my view. Even if Green stitched Whyte up in doing so, that doesn't seem to me to change the validity of the authorisation. It may create another claim by Whyte against Green though. If the transfer was ultra vires, one would wonder why no challenge was taken to it at the time.

 

Even if the above break down is incorrect, Whyte - as director - suffers no real loss by the transfer to Sevco Scotland. It's only if Whyte is a shareholder that he suffers any loss. We've never heard whether Whyte is/was a shareholder - the last information we have was that Green was the sole shareholder. Unfortunately, Green's comments that he handed Sevco 5088 back to Whyte after the CVA failed do blur this position though.

 

I don't think anyone can categorically say Sevco 5088 has no claim - and so it shouldn't be dismissed altogether - but for the reasons above it seems unlikely.

 

In the context of the latest developments, we should keep in mind that here Companies House is doing little more than recording forms lodged with it. Companies House is saying nothing at all about the validity of Whyte's claim to be a director. It strikes me that the latest rouind of resignations and re-appointments is a bit like the musical chairs of registered office for this company last year. Someone has sought to have Whyte removed, and Whyte has submitted a form showing himself as re-appointed.

 

Whyte's last letter before claim was intimated around May 2013. A letter before claim with disclosure is a specific English Law procedure, and I'm not familiar with it. There seem to be varying periods within which a response must be made to such a letter (depending on the nature of the claim), and varying procedures which follow before an action can get to Court. All of these would be long past now.

 

Finally, the inclusion of the claim in the accounts tells us nothing about its validity. The claim - if successful - would have a significant impact on the company, and unless it can be dismissed out of hand would always have to be shown. It should be noted it was an "emphasis of matter" only.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

This looks like a well-informed post from Marty101 on FF vis-à-vis this issue:

 

that all seems reasonable. the devil will be in the detail.