RANGERRAB 3,254 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 All the judge declared was that tickets didn't own the seats as they claimed and as such were standard creditors. In their defence they voted for the CVA. They didn't own the seats.They thought they did but Lord Hodge ruled otherwise under Scots Law. They were awarded personal contractual rights by Lord Hodge hence their pursuit of Whyte 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 They didn't own the seats.They thought they did but Lord Hodge ruled otherwise under Scots Law.They were awarded personal contractual rights by Lord Hodge hence their pursuit of Whyte And creditor status. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 At the tail end of last year Whyte lost his appeal against Ticketus at the high court in London for 'fraudulent misrepresentation' and was ordered to pay Ticketus £17.6m. How could Ticketus have pursued both Whyte and Rangers oldco for the same debt? Quite easily. Rangers were the creditor but as they were unable to pay, Ticketus were able to go after Whyte as he had given a personal guarantee. Whyte was never the creditor but as a guarantor he would be due to pay in the event of a default. As I understand they were originally a creditor for £26.7m with their profit on the deal being £26.7m - £17.6m eqs £9m but chose to go after Whyte instead I'm not sure that you understand the situation correctly. They were awarded personal contractual rights I don't even know what that means. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 They didn't own the seats.They thought they did but Lord Hodge ruled otherwise under Scots Law.They were awarded personal contractual rights by Lord Hodge hence their pursuit of Whyte They thought they were secured creditors but Lord Hodge effectively said they were merely ordinary creditors, whatever way you want to dress it up they're creditors of RFC plc. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,254 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 They thought they were secured creditors but Lord Hodge effectively said they were merely ordinary creditors, whatever way you want to dress it up they're creditors of RFC plc. Agree but as unsecured creditors didn't that effectively mean they'd have got nothing? Lord hodge awarded them personal contractual rights and did not not mean they could go after Whyte which they did thro the courts down south 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Agree but as unsecured creditors didn't that effectively mean they'd have got nothing? Lord hodge awarded them personal contractual rights and did not not mean they could go after Whyte which they did thro the courts down south Ticketus aren't a creditor..... Which one is it to be? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7 5,144 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 How exactly did his Lordship award Ticketus personal contractual rights? Did their rights against CW not arise out of his personal guarantee? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Agree but as unsecured creditors didn't that effectively mean they'd have got nothing? Lord hodge awarded them personal contractual rights and did not not mean they could go after Whyte which they did thro the courts down south Ticketus are ordinary creditors same as debenture holders, the guy that runs the paper shop, the guy that printed the programmes etc, etc, no more, no less. Lord Hodge awarded them f*&k all. The reason they are going after Whyte as already pointed out to you is that he gave a personal guarantee that's totally irrelevant with regards to anything Lord Hodge did or said. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,254 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Ticketus are ordinary creditors same as debenture holders, the guy that runs the paper shop, the guy that printed the programmes etc, etc, no more, no less. Lord Hodge awarded them f*&k all. The reason they are going after Whyte as already pointed out to you is that he gave a personal guarantee that's totally irrelevant with regards to anything Lord Hodge did or said. OK understand. I'd thought because they'd pursued Whyte they'd relinquished their rights as creditors(unsecured)? But are there not two very pertinent questions regards Ticketus 1) why did they give Whyte so much unsecured credit? 2) did they have no idea of Whyte's dubious business background? On the day he got Rangers just about everyone else seemed to know I.e. Jeff Randall, Alistair Johnston, Paul Murray etc. Did they think it wise to lend to such an individual? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 OK understand. I'd thought because they'd pursued Whyte they'd relinquished their rights as creditors(unsecured)?But are there not two very pertinent questions regards Ticketus 1) why did they give Whyte so much unsecured credit? 2) did they have no idea of Whyte's dubious business background? On the day he got Rangers just about everyone else seemed to know I.e. Jeff Randall, Alistair Johnston, Paul Murray etc. Did they think it wise to lend to such an individual? They were under the impression that they had security in future ST sales. They hadn't taken Scot's Law into account. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.