Liverpool Takeover Thread
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
11.40pm: An interesting email from a law student. "The Texas judge who issued the injunction has not made an decision on the merits of the case. The injunction just halts everything until there is a hearing. The grounds for granting an emergency TRO are that the actions will create irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated for through monetary damages. I suspect that once Judge Jordan actually has a hearing on the issue, he will dismiss it and remove the injunction. The Texas courts probably do have jurisdiction, but they will be hesitant to take it when it will put them in conflict with English courts that are better able to adjudicate the issue. Hopefully, this has only temporarily delayed the sale and Liverpool will avoid administration, but H&G have probably bought themselves a couple more days."
-edit-
11.55pm: Ignore my post at 11.35pm. I am clearly talking nonsense as David Goldstone emails in to point out that everything is on hold until 25 October as this is the hearing date in the Texas court.
=/ We cant even be put into Admin anymore ...
-edit 2-
More spelling mistakes in the legal document, lol.
Page 2 Line 5 - IA's name spelt wrong, heh.
Update at 4:54 p.m.: I just spoke with Stodghill, who says his office is being "innundated with angry e-mails from Liverpool fans." I asked him: How does a Dallas court have jurisdiction over proceedings initiated in the U.K. He says: Royal Bank of Scotland is registered to do business in the state of Texas; and, of course, New England Sports Ventures is U.S. based. Also being sued is Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton. And, says Stodghill, "We allege in the lawsuit he committed some of his tortuous acts in Texas in meetings with Mr. Hicks, so we're suing him in part based on conduct here that did harm to Texas residents."
Hicks and Gillett's £237 million debt to RBS is due Friday. So, then, what happens between now and then, as the TRO hearing is set for October 25? Says Stodghill, what happens in the next two days "remains to be seen." As in: "There could be an additional fight at the courthouse over the TRO -- that could potentially happen. There could be discussions with the board to evaluate the higher offers. The one offer they're refusing to evaluate is £100 million over NESV's. And there could be discussions with RBS."
Cry me a ****ing river, seriously.
-edit-
11.55pm: Ignore my post at 11.35pm. I am clearly talking nonsense as David Goldstone emails in to point out that everything is on hold until 25 October as this is the hearing date in the Texas court.
=/ We cant even be put into Admin anymore ...
-edit 2-
More spelling mistakes in the legal document, lol.
Page 2 Line 5 - IA's name spelt wrong, heh.
Update at 4:54 p.m.: I just spoke with Stodghill, who says his office is being "innundated with angry e-mails from Liverpool fans." I asked him: How does a Dallas court have jurisdiction over proceedings initiated in the U.K. He says: Royal Bank of Scotland is registered to do business in the state of Texas; and, of course, New England Sports Ventures is U.S. based. Also being sued is Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton. And, says Stodghill, "We allege in the lawsuit he committed some of his tortuous acts in Texas in meetings with Mr. Hicks, so we're suing him in part based on conduct here that did harm to Texas residents."
Hicks and Gillett's £237 million debt to RBS is due Friday. So, then, what happens between now and then, as the TRO hearing is set for October 25? Says Stodghill, what happens in the next two days "remains to be seen." As in: "There could be an additional fight at the courthouse over the TRO -- that could potentially happen. There could be discussions with the board to evaluate the higher offers. The one offer they're refusing to evaluate is £100 million over NESV's. And there could be discussions with RBS."
Cry me a ****ing river, seriously.
Last edited:
Its late but after nagging people with a bit more experience in law then i do (and i know **** all lol):
This TRO was drawn up by hicks / hicks legal people, and a judge signed it.
There is a clear disclaimer with it that all this is based upon the understanding that Hicks is telling the truth and is able to show evidence of what he is claiming. A $15,000 charge is required (And paid) to make this legal, its intended to cover damages in the case that Hicks is talking out of his ass, basically.
In a few days, a judge must read over the case and decide if Hicks has a hope in hell, and either go ahead with the 25th October hearing, or remove the TRO.
Stalling tactics, based on lies. At worst this will stall by 3-4 days. At best, after council with a judge in the UK, it could be ripped up by this time tomorrow.
This TRO was drawn up by hicks / hicks legal people, and a judge signed it.
There is a clear disclaimer with it that all this is based upon the understanding that Hicks is telling the truth and is able to show evidence of what he is claiming. A $15,000 charge is required (And paid) to make this legal, its intended to cover damages in the case that Hicks is talking out of his ass, basically.
In a few days, a judge must read over the case and decide if Hicks has a hope in hell, and either go ahead with the 25th October hearing, or remove the TRO.
Stalling tactics, based on lies. At worst this will stall by 3-4 days. At best, after council with a judge in the UK, it could be ripped up by this time tomorrow.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,312
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
The trouble is Hicks is always going to be able raise another case to throw some doubt it to the minds of RBS and the Liverpool board that they might be sued for selling.
It’s time to take a calculated gamble and push the deal through. Alternatively put the club into administration and take the 9 points, the current situation is just as damaging.
It’s time to take a calculated gamble and push the deal through. Alternatively put the club into administration and take the 9 points, the current situation is just as damaging.
I just found that also - interesting side swipe by H & G, targetting RBS with their business interests in Texas more than the club itself (which the american lawyer admits is a very thin legal excuse)
Upto two weeks (very temporary) restraining order - although by the sounds of it RBS could probably get it all sorted and heard early next week (given time difference maybe they could get it heard Friday, but that might be pushing it)
H & G targeted RBS's business interests in Texas - rather than LFC, so yes Texan law seems to be very powerful
(although it seems it would be very easy for RBS to swat this injunction away with a single hearing)
I wouldnt be surprised if this is just the first step H & G use
A lot of people are suggesting that although this Texas court may claim to have jurisdiction, the injunction it's placed is almost certainly isn't binding and that the club could possibly have it overturned within 24 hours.
I hope that once this is all sorted, every person possible takes Hicks to court claiming huge damages. Getting this fat **** out of Liverpool isn't enough any more, I won't be happy until he's ruined.
edit: A second high court hearing at 2pm today.
edit 2: Also reports are coming out that Mill Financial own Hicks' shares as well as Gilletts.
This is getting even more confusing. I'm going out and hopefully by this afternoon things are clearer and Hicks has choked to death on a hotdog.
I hope that once this is all sorted, every person possible takes Hicks to court claiming huge damages. Getting this fat **** out of Liverpool isn't enough any more, I won't be happy until he's ruined.
edit: A second high court hearing at 2pm today.
edit 2: Also reports are coming out that Mill Financial own Hicks' shares as well as Gilletts.
This is getting even more confusing. I'm going out and hopefully by this afternoon things are clearer and Hicks has choked to death on a hotdog.
Last edited:
I realise the Texan case has barely a leg to stand on - I would still be surprised if RBS dont have to appear there in some form before the injunction can be lifted though
Just laughs at Hicks selling his shares without approval - what a complete and utter *******
By the end of this H & G will probably wish they had accepted the "nuicence" money offered time and time again before now (I think at one point they were offered one way or another a few million each to "go away" as it were, rather than the 10's/100s of millions they were after)
Just laughs at Hicks selling his shares without approval - what a complete and utter *******
By the end of this H & G will probably wish they had accepted the "nuicence" money offered time and time again before now (I think at one point they were offered one way or another a few million each to "go away" as it were, rather than the 10's/100s of millions they were after)
