SteveC 150 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Saw this elsewhere,doesn't make for good reading taken along with all else. http://www.oeclaw.co.uk/images/uploads/judgments/SDI_Judgment.pdf It sure doesn't 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 (edited) http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-39598397 Note the use of Zombie in a sub heading as well as the tone of the piece and the closing paragraphs. -- Back in the top flight of Scottish football, at least some pride restored, the fans at Ibrox might still hope that normal service has now resumed. They're to be sorely disappointed again, and not only because an imminent criminal court case can be expected to bring back some painful memories. The current directors' box regime, under Dave King, is still in emergency measures. Rangers International Football Club (RIFC) is cut off from normal financing and banking, and having to fund losses by reliance on wealthy shareholders. But now, King's hold on Ibrox is in doubt. The method by which he got control of it has led to the close attention of the Takeover Panel - a usually obscure arm of company law, with the job of refereeing fairness for all shareholders amid bruising corporate jousts. It has never used its enforcement powers before, which is just one of the aspects of the RIFC and the Dave King case, which is unprecedented, and leaves a lot of uncertainty hanging over the club. Concert party To recap, there was a well publicised consortium of wealthy Rangers fans who worked with South Africa-based Dave King to wrest the club from its former directors. They achieved this by buying more than a third of the shares in the club. And that's the way it has remained. Ibrox stadium Image caption Shares in Rangers International Football Club have been trading at 27.5 pence But if you're involved in a takeover of a company - any company - when you get past 30% of share ownership, you are required, by law to make an offer to buy all the other shares. The price is set by the regulator at the highest level reached in the last 12 months during which the bidder was amassing shares. If shareholders combine forces to take over a company, as this team did, in a so-called "concert party", that has to be declared as a single bid. In this case, no such declaration was officially made. The Takeover Panel has since said that it should have been. There's a good reason for this. With 30% you can have effective control of a company. Now, think of company A which buys enough shares in its main commercial rival company B, to take control of its boardroom. 'Delinquent director' By taking decisions which undermine the health of that company, A's owner can shrink B's market share and profitability, and ultimately run it out of business altogether. That's clearly not in the interests of the other shareholders of company B. So fairness requires that they are offered a fair price for every shareholder to sell to the takeover bidder. That rivalry scenario may not apply at Ibrox, but the law still does. And since the Takeover Panel last month told Dave King he had a month to make an offer to buy all the club's shares, he seems to have simply ignored it. That's why the Panel is taking the unprecedented action of seeking to enforce its ruling, through the Court of Session. The court can take whatever action it believes is necessary to ensure the law is observed. Mr King could, for instance, be barred from acting as a director, or forced to sell his stake in the club. And if Mr King continues to ignore legal authority, he can be ruled in contempt of court. The Takeover Panel's code also includes measures for "cold shouldering" - for instance, requiring professional bodies to challenge the director's continued status within them. That may not much bother a businessman in South Africa, but if it pushes the financial regulator to ensure financial companies don't have anything to do with a delinquent director, then that could hurt a bit more. Now, here are two puzzling complications. The Takeover Panel ruling says that Mr King must offer to buy all the other shares at 20 pence. But if you look at the platform on which Rangers International Football Club (RIFC) shares are traded, you'll find the most recent trades have been at 27.5 pence. Parliament House Image caption The Takeover Panel is seeking to enforce its ruling through the Court of Session in Edinburgh It might, at first, seem daft to sell your shares for 20 pence when the going rate appears to be 27.5 pence. But that going rate may not be as it seems. The trading platform won't tell you is how recent these trades were. That market is not like the London stock exchange. You put up a share stake for sale, and wait for someone else to show interest. Trading is sticky. It may be possible, that way, to inflate the true value of shares. And if you have shares in any company, they are only worth something if you can find someone to buy them. It matters a lot that such markets have liquidity - meaning enough willing buyers. Zombie shareholders The other puzzlement is the 10.4% of the company that's owned by anonymous funds that have refused to respond to messages from Ibrox. Blue Pitch Holdings has four million shares, ATP Investments has 2.6m, Norne Anstalt has 1.2m and Putney Holdings has 700,000. Directors have written to them "requiring information about the nature of those interests". And having received no answer, they have barred these shareholders from exercising voting rights, receiving any dividends, or having a transfer of shares registered. That should make them impossible to sell. These appear to be zombie shareholders, which many may wish to link to those with a previous interest in running the club. Whoever is behind them, it's a weird presence on the share register of a company which is now in a lot of hot water. Of course, Dave King could solve his Takeover Panel problems by now making an offer for those shares, including the zombie element. That could cost him £11m, plus hefty advice, offer and transaction costs. That would set back to square one the romantic notion of ownership by the wider fan base, eventually handing control to the fans. It would also require Mr King to make good on his commitment to the club. He is supposed to be very rich, from his South African businesses. His clash with the country's tax authorities would suggest he must have done a lot of successful business to have failed to pay so much tax on it. We don't know how he got into that very expensive mess in his tax affairs. But the evidence suggests he may be the kind of person who receives official-looking letters and stuffs them in a drawer in the hope that the problem goes away. As a general rule, it doesn't. Edited April 14, 2017 by SteveC 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,331 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Just to get this straight, King will have to deposit the 11m somewhere to show that he has the money to the observing body, while making an attempt - as demanded - to buy the rest of the shares. For that he will have to come up with 500+k in costs for financial service companies, prospectus et al. What happens if some shareholders, say 5 % (clawed from fresh air), are willing to make a deal with him, the rest does not. Is he obliged to buy these shares and thus increase his own hold accordingly, yet can't do anything about the rest and will get his remaining money back? Would he be obliged, once he gets these +5 %, to make another attempt on getting the rest in the future? Or is he not obliged to by any further shares if only some but not all want to hand him their shares? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walterbear 557 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Just to get this straight, King will have to deposit the 11m somewhere to show that he has the money to the observing body, while making an attempt - as demanded - to buy the rest of the shares. For that he will have to come up with 500+k in costs for financial service companies, prospectus et al. What happens if some shareholders, say 5 % (clawed from fresh air), are willing to make a deal with him, the rest does not. Is he obliged to buy these shares and thus increase his own hold accordingly, yet can't do anything about the rest and will get his remaining money back? Would he be obliged, once he gets these +5 %, to make another attempt on getting the rest in the future? Or is he not obliged to by any further shares if only some but not all want to hand him their shares? If he goes above a certain higher threshold he has to go round again at a higher price if I'm not mistaken but it's more than 35% across the concert party so 5% wouldn't be a problem and yes he keeps his 11m or what's left if it. The solution is not beyond his wealth but there's probably a sum due to Ashley shortly from the club. It's just dead money down the drain when we need money. Unless DK moves on we are in a cycle of loans from other directors which will run out and we will also not have European revenues. DK and the others will know all of this if course and the one positive is DK is a proper Rangers fan so hopefully he will do what is necessary (fund or walk) but if he stays I can't see prospects going forward. He appears to be getting a worsening reputation in financial circles and it wasn't great to start with. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,487 Posted April 14, 2017 Author Share Posted April 14, 2017 All this does seem concerning, to me at least!, could Club1872 contact the club for an explanation? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,371 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 All this does seem concerning, to me at least!, could Club1872 contact the club for an explanation? That would be the same Club 1872 whose director, James Blair, was the sole representative of the club/Dave King at the Takeover Panel hearing, and who therefore failed in his attempt to make the Takeover Panel see it in the same way as Dave King? No conflict of interest there. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Saw this elsewhere,doesn't make for good reading taken along with all else. http://www.oeclaw.co.uk/images/uploads/judgments/SDI_Judgment.pdf Definitely a punch in the face but equally not a knock out blow. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 (edited) Definitely a punch in the face but equally not a knock out blow. I know, but to be called "cynical and disingenuous" to be repeatedly not believed, to be shown to be "at it".... it really reads badly. Edited April 14, 2017 by SteveC 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,371 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Club 1872's reaction: Takeover Appeal Board Court Action Club 1872 notes the non compliance of the Chairman Dave King with the TAB ruling of the 13th March. At this stage we are neither supportive or critical of this until we understand Mr Kings reasoning and future plans. We have approached RIFC for clarification 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 I know, but to be called "cynical and disingenuous" to be repeatedly not believed, to be shown to be "at it".... it really reads badly. Nothing that King hasn't been described as in court before though. I can't see him hanging on for much longer bit will definitely be sorry to see him go. He's much better than the last couple of showers of maggots we had. 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.