Liverpool Takeover Thread

Pigeon_Killer · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:13

Hope the stress kills the greedy **** :mad:

Alpherah · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:13

Guy with some legal knowledge on RAWK:

The sale is subject to uk law. The company although registered in cayman for tax purposes is subject to uk law. I am struggling to see how a texan court can block the sale. The company is subject to the laws of england and wales and therefore the jurisdicition lies there. Furthermore the place of performance is england and wales. The texan courts will be told to do one. The injunction is worthless.

KNiVES · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:15

You don't even need a modicum of legal knowledge to know that a court in one country halfway across the world cannot have any say in the business runnings of a company :confused:

Otherwise nothing would ever get done. Hicks is grasping at straws here, much like anyone who's realized he's going to lose 120 million would.

Alpherah · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:18

Worse - what kind of corrupt backwards court in the states would risk reputation over this?
Its clearly in the wrong, for the obvious reasons stated above.
Can expect a backlash in another high-court appearance soon.

-edit-
tariqpanja Hicks court document says Texas court has jurisdiction 'over the parties and jurisdiction is proper in this court.'

Seriously, Texan courts dont even carry jurisdiction over other US states, how on earth can it have any influence over the UK?
Muppets.

Alpherah · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:21

"RBS has been complicit in this scheme with the Director Defendants. For example, in letters from RBS to potential investors obtained just within the past few days, RBS has informed investors that it will approve of a deal only if there is "no economic return to equity" for Messrs. Hicks and Gillett. In furtherance of this grand conspiracy, on information and belief, RBS has improperly used its influence as the club's creditor and as a worldwide banking leader to prevent any transaction that would permit Messrs. Hicks and Gillett to recover any of their initial investment in the club, much less share in the substantial appreciation in the value of Liverpool FC that their investments have created."

Burned_Alive · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:21

The owners of Liverpool Football Club today reported that a Texas State District Court has granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the Board of Liverpool Football Club (LFC) from executing a sale of the Club to New England Sports Ventures (NESV). The court set a hearing date of October 25, 2010.

The TRO request, signed by Judge Jim Jordan of the 160th District Court in Dallas, was part of a lawsuit filed today by the owners of LFC against Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Martin Broughton, Christian Purslow, Ian Ayre, NESV and Philip Nash. The lawsuit also seeks temporary and permanent injunctions, and damages totaling approximately $1.6 billion (over £1 billion).

The suit lays out the defendants' "epic swindle" in which they conspired to devise and execute a scheme to sell LFC to NESV at a price they know to be hundreds of millions of dollars below true market value (and well below Forbes magazine's recent independent $822 million valuation of the club) - and below multiple expressions of interest and offers to buy either the club in its entirety or make minority investments (including Meriton and Mill Financial). It describes how the defendants excluded the owners from meetings, discussions and communications regarding the potential sale to NESV and interfered with efforts by the owners to obtain financing for Liverpool FC.

The Club's owners are represented by attorneys from the international law firm of Fish & Richardson.

The following are some of the key points in the complaint, which details the roles of RBS and the other defendants, and also describes previously undisclosed offers to purchase LFC:

"The Director Defendants were acting merely as pawns of RBS, wholly abdicating the fiduciary responsibilities that they owed in the sale."

"RBS has been complicit in this scheme with the Director Defendants. For example, in letters from RBS to potential investors obtained just within the past few days, RBS has informed investors that it will approve of a deal only if there is "no economic return to equity" for Messrs. Hicks and Gillett. In furtherance of this grand conspiracy, on information and belief, RBS has improperly used its influence as the club's creditor and as a worldwide banking leader to prevent any transaction that would permit Messrs. Hicks and Gillett to recover any of their initial investment in the club, much less share in the substantial appreciation in the value of Liverpool FC that their investments have created."

"On or about October 4, 2010, Mr. Hicks received a letter of interest from a third potential purchaser represented by FBR Capital Markets ("FBR"), offering to purchase Liverpool FC for £375 to £400 million ($595 to $635 million). The letter informed Mr. Hicks that the potential purchaser would not need financing, possessed the funds to close the transaction, and intended to build a new stadium for Liverpool FC."

"Additionally, the Plaintiffs learned just days ago about another potential investor that made a similar offer in the £350 to £400 million range that was communicated to Defendant Broughton and another unnamed co-conspirator in late August. According to this investor, Mr. Broughton never responded to the offer. Moreover, when the purported sale to NESV was announced, this investor again contacted Mr. Broughton and informed him that the offer, which significantly exceeded the NESV offer, was still on the table. Again, Mr. Broughton brushed this offer aside without further discussion."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/oct/13/liverpool-sale-high-court-verdict-live

andy@moFo · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:22

Real gritty legal battle now. Get Lord Grabiner back on the case.

Alpherah · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:22

If this is the case, and i seriously doubt that it is, then legally they need to fight it out in our court rooms.
Texas can **** off.

andy@moFo said:
Real gritty legal battle now. Get Lord Grabiner back on the case.

He's at the board-meeting.

Burned_Alive · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:24

The club will already be sold though presumeably, itll just be a battle of whether H&G can recover any damages from RBS essentially.

FeFiDoh · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:26

I am confused...

The statement says they were not allowed time to seek refinance? Surely the deadline is up and its now in the hands of RBS who now own the club and can do what they see fit?

Cut their losses and move on?

Alpherah · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:26

This court also passed an Injunction preventing the sale of the club. And was filed before the board-meeting.

Also:

"The concern here is he potentially lining up a court battle with NESV... which will then force NESV to get a declatory judgement in the UK to fight off legal battle in US... the US system makes it very easy to sue... but I see it as a delay tactic... "
A delay would force LFC into Admin, most likely.

aidan444 · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:26

Hicks must be stupid to sue RBS, Everyone knows RBS would, will and can walk over Hicks in a court with their eyes closed, what a stupid, stupid man.

Alpherah · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:27

Additionally, as i understand.
This damages case and the way its worded, means Henry will be arrested when he returns to the US under Fraud charges.
The "Easy to manipulate" US system strikes again.

KNiVES · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:28

I get a feeling it's going to get really messy now. I think the whole saga is only just starting now if those charges really are being put forward. Hicks is effectively pointing the finger at RBS itself.

Alpherah · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:30

Cant see the UK allowing a lowly texan court deal with this.
Will be dealt with in the UK high court, again. And most likely say "Erm, sorry guys! RBS are in the right" yet again, and Hicks will be off crying, yet again.

FeFiDoh · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:31

I so wish I could see Hicks right about now the guy must be on the verge of exploding

Alpherah · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:33

Seen the legal document, its doing the rounds online now:
It basically demands a halt to the sale of LFC on the reasons stated before.
Additionally quotes some lame ass US law as a reason for why it must be heard in the states, and how only US legal representation will be permitted.
My law studying friend, for what its worth, seems to think the only way around this is for RBS to force us into Administration, thus rendering null the TRO.

Jokester · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:36

Will be interesting to see, Liverpool is the asset of an American company so might not be as clear cut as being only UK law that is applicable.

Alpherah · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:37

Liverpool FC is the asset of a UK company (Kop Holdings).
Kop Cayman was only setup as a way to avoid tax in the movement of money, and has no ownership of the club or its holdings company.
And besides, its registered in a different US State then Texas. Texan courts have no power over this, at all.

Another interesting thing i noticed on the legal document, they miss-spelt Merseyside heh
-edit-
Comment on the guardian blog! Lol

""Can't the Premier League revoke H&G's status as 'fit and proper persons'?" asks K. Phillip Harrison. "I realise I risk being named in a Texan lawsuit for suggesting this (but I am ready to counter-sue in the district court of Matale, Sri Lanka where I have Friends).""

Haha, too true.

OriginalJonty · 13 Oct 2010 at 22:42

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8062845/Liverpool-takeover-Tom-Hicks-seeks-to-derail-NESV-bid-with-Texas-court-injunction.html

So, the saga takes another turn. Hicks is trying to use the American courts to stop the sale.