High Court Date and Time

[Trucker Paddy]

 

Double edge sword really, like Whelan pointed out.

 

Could be entire core of Hicks case, either that or he might attack Broughton autority in the matter, claiming he has no rights as a board member when the NESV deal was sealed.

 

Either way, it leaves him with nothing as it was RBS deal and their money.

 

They could simply take the club over should Hicks win.

 

Surely he can see its a no-win situation should he "win".

 

If broughton and RBS have that guarntee in writing it's all a waste of courts time, and Hicks should be made pay all costs

[coop]

RCJ hearing Tues relates to the breach of contract only, "not an attempt by RBS to call in loans or appoint administrator" #LFC

 

RBS injunction prevents H&G from changing board, appointing directors etc #LFC

 

RBS was granted injunction against H&G last Friday for breach of contractual agreements when Broughton appointed... #LFC

[WaltonRed]

If he loses and he will lose, he'll be made to pay costs.

[usernameunknown]

RBS STATEMENT

 

RBS in its capacity as lender to the Kop group of companies received the benefit of various contractual undertakings from Mr. Hicks and Mr. Gillett in relation to the corporate governance arrangements that Mr. Hicks and Mr. Gillett agreed would apply to the Kop group of companies with effect from April 2010.

 

Those undertakings provided for the appointment of Mr Broughton as chairman of the board and the appointment of the chief executive and commercial director of LFC to the Kop boards.

 

As is well known, Mr. Hicks and Mr. Gillett purported to make changes to those corporate governance arrangements on 4 October. This was in breach of those contractual undertakings.In light of that purported breach of contract RBS sought and obtained on Friday 8 October 2010 an interim injunction against Mr. Hicks and Mr. Gillett until a further hearing scheduled for tomorrow.

 

Among other things, that interim injunction prevents Mr. Hicks or Mr. Gillett taking any steps to remove or replace Mr. Broughton from his position as chairman of the board of the Kop companies or from taking any other steps to appoint or remove any directors from the board of the Kop companies.

 

The proceedings tomorrow represent the continuation of Friday’s proceedings and relates to breach of contract only. These proceedings do not represent steps by RBS to enforce its security or to appoint an administrator.

 

We are unable to provide any visibility on timing for resolution of these proceedings at this stage.

[Chinandeler Bong]

Ooops , just started a thread on this , apologies Mods , got very excited, my heart is racing.

I thought it meant we have won the case.

[Wee-bey]

It sounds like tomorrow is a formality. They are fucked.

[bossy]

I like the RBS statement. In other words we let you have money on the understanding Broughton was brought in as the only person who could change the board. Am I right?

[bri]

Yep it means broughton was right when he said g an h couldn't sack him. It would appear the only thing now is the court to decide whether or not the club hasn't been devalued with the offer on the table . In a nutshell the owners reckon a mars bar goes for 50p are the board trying to knock it out for 25, at a loss. Or is 25 the true value

[Best Believe It]

I like the RBS statement. In other words we let you have money on the understanding Broughton was brought in as the only person who could change the board. Am I right?

 

More than that. It says we expect to win and that this in effect means Liverpool are sold. RBS wouldn't have released this unless they were very very confident of winning.

 

I think Hicks is fucked. Hard. Gillett was of course already screwed.

[RobbieOR]

I wouldnt be surprised if this was settled before tomorrow.

[slippydoo]

As said its just the 7/7 thing, still raw for some of the families.

 

Are you emotionally retarded. Stop creaming off other peoples grief and get a life.

[Wor Horse]

I don't know why there's a big high court case about 7/7. It's 1.

[aws]

The biggest worries are

 

1. Declaration judgements are quick precisely because there is hardly any evidence allowed. Which means that unless the court thinks it's really clear cut there is a big possibility that it will get adjourned to a later date when the court has time for a full hearing of the issues (could well be months away).

 

2. The court might give a narrow judgement which doesn't deal with all the issues. For example, the court might agree that the undertakings are valid and the Board are still the Board but the court may not want to give a view on the validity of the sale process generally because it wants to hear all the evidence in another hearing.

 

3. If 2 is the case, then that would allow G&H to launch their own separate proceedings to injunct any sale until all the evidence has been heard.

 

Fair way to go before we can start celebrating.

[Carra_is_legend]

3. If 2 is the case, then that would allow G&H to launch their own separate proceedings to injunct any sale until all the evidence has been heard.

 

Fair way to go before we can start celebrating.

 

What good an injunction is, if they can't repay the loan if RBS decide to call it in?

 

Serious question btw.

[aws]

What good an injunction is, if they can't repay the loan if RBS decide to call it in?

 

Serious question btw.

 

If they went down this route, they would try and include RBS in the injunction proceedings and allege that RBS have breached some duty of good faith to them such that the whole sale process is tainted and can't proceed. This would buy them time to find re-financing which seems to have been their main game plan for the last year or so.

[Carra_is_legend]

If they went down this route, they would try and include RBS in the injunction proceedings and allege that RBS have breached some duty of good faith to them such that the whole sale process is tainted and can't proceed. This would buy them time to find re-financing which seems to have been their main game plan for the last year or so.

 

May be this is why RBS are filing a seperate case?

 

RBS could well say they didn't have any say in the sale process or choosing the "best" bidder. They could argue that the whole point of "their" case is about establishing whether Hicks has or hasn't got the power to remove directors from the board.

 

It is then up to the directors to establish in front the judge that the sale was concluded in a proper way.

[aws]

May be this is why RBS are filing a seperate case?

 

RBS could well say they didn't have any say in the sale process or choosing the "best" bidder. They could argue that the whole point of "their" case is about establishing whether Hicks has or hasn't got the power to remove directors from the board.

 

It is then up to the directors to establish in front the judge that the sale was concluded in a proper way.

 

RBS have done their best to keep their distance from the sale process but ultimately it's been them driving it. My fear is that the sale process is so complicated (look at Lim today) that when G&H start saying they're being cheated by incompetence/bad faith/ negligence etc the court will just give a decision on the directors' issue and defer the bigger question to a full hearing.

[Carra_is_legend]

RBS have done their best to keep their distance from the sale process but ultimately it's been them driving it. My fear is that the sale process is so complicated (look at Lim today) that when G&H start saying they're being cheated by incompetence/bad faith/ negligence etc the court will just give a decision on the directors' issue and defer the bigger question to a full hearing.

 

I see what you saying AWS, perfectly, but whatever we take or neglect from today's events, even Lim's "contact" has only said that he wasn't even given a chance to talk to RBS.

 

As you say, RBS may have driven the sale process but there is very little in the media to suggest they were actively involved.

 

To me, it looks like every step has been planned. Whether it works or not, we shall see but it looks to me like, even though everyone has worked as a team, RBS have acted in a way what they think its best for them and the non-owner directors have acted in a way its necessary to find the "best" bidder for the club and its major creditor, RBS.

 

Even Broughton hasn't said much about RBS in public. In the BBC interview he said "its up to them" on what they want to do. Considering RBS formed the board, it is too much and a bit naive to believe that everything has happened without the knowledge of them. But this is how the board wants us to believe. That RBS had nothing to do with the sale.

 

I suppose we will come to know at some point in the next few days/weeks/months.

[coop]

Looks like the case is going to be opened and adjourned straight away.

[Ponz]

3. If 2 is the case, then that would allow G&H to launch their own separate proceedings to injunct any sale until all the evidence has been heard.

 

Wouldn't such an injunction contradict the first ruling, though? I would think the whole point of establishing the board's legitimacy is to also establish their right to effect executive decisions- sale included- pending further legislation. If not, what would be the point of RBS filing seperately?

[Iantn]

Looks like the case is going to be opened and adjourned straight away.

 

Think it'd be a strange adjournment given the nature of the case.

[Wor Horse]

12 hours.

[col06]

Tomorrow is just a quick 10 minute thing isn't it ???

[RobbieOR]

Its only RBS tomorrow I think....

[Dr Arthur De Sabre]

Isnt it also the case the 'their own money' which they put in was also financed? AFAIK the money was brought in by themselves as it was loaned to them personally. They charge LFC the interest rate they are paying plus a margin. So if the money they are owed by LFC is no longer in existence they still have to stump up the cash to whoever loaned them the money personally?

 

I surmise, the money was lent from kop cayman to kop football, who injected it into Liverpool FC Athletics & Sports, as agreed with RBS to lower the debt to RBS and wachovia. The board are currently looking to sell Liverpool FC Athletics & Sports grounds, to NESV, from Kop Football ltd, kop football litd's primary creditor is RBS, they will take their money, KOP football the shell company is left with no actual assets, and as such is unable to return the loan to Kop Cayman ltd. The RBS do not really give a fuck about this as the list of creditors who hold a charge over LFC is: RBS, and the boys from Kop Football/Kop Cayman can go fuck themelves for the outstanding debt. I believe at the time Kop Cayman were first mentioned, it was that they had lent more money via kop cayman to plough into liverpool, and were just topping up the interest rates from around 6% to 10% to make their margin, if correct those boys are gonna be deep in the shit, financially, no fucker will want to lend to them again, probably why they have been scraping the barrell these last 2 years for further investment, they gambled and lost their shirts