Harper Macleod and LNS


I am genuinely intrigued in the question of what would …

Comment on Harper Macleod and LNS by John Clark.

I am genuinely intrigued in the question of what would happen if the sale of a company was declared fraudulent, after its assets had been further sold on to a new entity.
So, household duties variously attended to, lunch taken, and Stuart and Tam just signing off, I have sent this email to the email address of the Financial Times newsdesk:

“Are you having a wee look at the story that broke yesterday, about the arrest of Paul Clark and David Whitehouse ( of Duff and Phelps),and the issue of a warrant for the arrest of Craig Whyte, in connection with the sale to Craig Whyte by Sir David Murray of the then Rangers Football Club in 2011?
My interest is in understanding what would be the effects on current shareholders in Rangers International FC plc if, and it may be a very big IF, it were to be proved that the sale of the club to Whyte had been based on a huge fraud, and had to be declared null and void by the Courts?
Would this put them in the category of purchasers of, in effect, stolen property (albeit in perfect good faith), which still in law belongs to Sir David Murray and the pre-sale shareholders ?
Is there any actual precedent of a company having been fraudulently purchased, run into administration and liquidation, its assets sold to fraudsters , who set up a new company, go public, raise millions from institutional investors ?
How would such a mess be sorted out? On the face of it, and presumably, the ‘goods'(the assets as they were immediately before the sale) would have to be returned to the pre-sale owners as legally belonging to them. But this would mean that every investor in the ‘fraudulent’ new club would lose all their investment!
Has this ever happened?
Looks like a good story, and the major shareholders in RIFC plc must surely be worried? Have they been contacted?

Yours in intense curiosity

John Clark Also Commented

Harper Macleod and LNS
mungoboy says:
November 14, 2014 at 10:32 pm
‘..(Cheers Theresa).’
Aw, mungobhoy, there’s a limit! 😀

Harper Macleod and LNS
oddjob says:
November 14, 2014 at 10:00 pm
‘If they were detained under Scots Law, and then arrested, I believe that they will now be charged..’
I was prompted by mungobhoy’s summary to have a look at the progress of the Criminal Justice( Scotland)Bill ( a result of Lord Carloway’s Review). The minutes of the Parliamentary Committee ( 4th Feb 2014) make interesting reading on the subject of doing away with the distinction between ‘detention’ and ‘arrest'( which distinction is apparently unique to Scotland).
And I am much taken by and, frankly, surprised at, the way that the parliamentarians in committee really do get right into the serious business of questioning ‘witnesses’ and the recommendations made by Lord Carloway. I get the impression that our MSPs, like the rest of us, are aware that they too might one day get their collars felt, and don’t want the Law to give too much power to the constables to bang people up on spec!
The Bill has a long, unspecified way to go, and meantime, as you say, there is ‘detention’ and ‘arrest’ as too different things.

Harper Macleod and LNS
Bryce Curdy says:
November 14, 2014 at 9:14 pm
‘.. Assuming some sort of illegality is confirmed, what are the likely implications? .’
I have tried to find any kind of precedent where a company has been fraudulently purchased and then sold on.Haven’t found any so far.

But it’s absolutely mind-boggling to contemplate the possibilities.
RFC would still belong to SDM.
The Administration/Liquidation nullified, and the ‘status quo ante’ before the ‘sale’ restored.
Creditors and debenture holders of RFC piling in to get some kind of payment.
Fresh Administration with no hint of jiggery-pokery,
A failed CVA, genuine liquidation ( no private selling-off of the assets), but with no possibility of any kind of buyer prepared to risk the big tax case.
Spiv ,and also, of course, the honest, shareholders of RIFC plc absolutely stuffed, with their ‘shares’ totally worthless.
MA a ‘victim’, having to go after individual spiv directors to get his loan and other monies back.

Could our legal and commercial and Sporting systems handle that kind of mess?
It would probably require a special Act of Parliament to re-write whatever the legislation might currently say about contracts and company law, so as to allow a crime to be overlooked because not to do so would pose impossibly conflicting claims on rules of equity and justice etc etc.
Any commercial lawyers on here to give us a steer?

Recent Comments by John Clark

Who Is Conning Whom?
FinlochDecember 8, 2017 at 11:40
‘….Why were the SFSA not invited as valued members and contributors to your Congress Stewart?’
Because,Finloch, the SFA leadership can be characterised as being  one or more of the following:inward-looking, incestuously up its own fundament, secretive, self-protective, duplicitous, seriously self-harmed by its readiness to corrupt the Sport of which it is at present the Governance body.
It cannot run any risk of recognising an organised body of supporters [which it does not control] for fear of being seriously called to account  for its manifold failure in so many respects, not least its failure to grasp that 16 000 plus fans cannot all be wrong, and that what they say is overwhelmingly condemnatory and that in closing its eyes to its customer base it is  behaving like the head-in-the-sand ostrich.

Who Is Conning Whom?
wottpiDecember 8, 2017 at 11:02
‘…..Michael Stewart is one of the few people who called it perefectly………………..the fact that so many involved around the game as pundits, reporters and journos got it so wrong just points to the poor standard of commentary on our game and the lack of understanding (or is it a fear of acknowledging) of how bad things are at Ibrox.’
Concomitant with being absolutely scrupulously fair in one’s criticism of  pundits and journos is the requirement that one should be ready to give credit where credit is due.
I therefore have to say that Michael Stewart was not a lone voice: Chick Young had for long aired his views that McInnes would not be going to TRFC Ltd, even to the point of calling up his successful record over many years as a tapper-in to ‘sources’.
He was shaken a little bit the other night when the news of TRFC’s approach broke,but nevertheless, he deserves a bit of credit for not following the party propaganda line.
(Oh, that was sore, having to say that!)19

Who Is Conning Whom?
DenDecember 7, 2017 at 23:19
‘..I am glad that McInnes has honoured his contract and the spirit of the statements made by himself and Milne last week. Suggests he is a man of some character.’
There was a very understandable moment of indecisiveness.

After all, who among us cannot say in his/her heart that they would not love to have been a ball-boy at their club, never mind play for it, never mind becoming ‘Manager’ of it!

And who is there among us who would not enjoy the prospect of increased (?)remuneration, increased challenge, increased (?)status …..

McInnes , however, has shown that he has the savvy to take on board that the club that is TRFC Ltd is not at all the same club that he once played for, but a mere artificial construction made by the big  hands of a Yorkshire schoolboy foot-race champion who would have made the Glasgow barras hucksters look like rank amateurs!

And it was, fair do’s, brave of him to rise above the frenzied incitement of the SMSM hacks- who are all now denying that they had any part in supporting the attempted destabilisation of Aberdeen football Club.

He now has to try to show the Aberdeen support that his two defeats v TRFC Ltd were in no way connected with any interest on his part in securing the TRFC Ltd job.

Good luck.

Who Is Conning Whom?
easyJamboDecember 7, 2017 at 22:40
‘…I’m afraid I’m away on holiday while next Friday’s hearings are on.’
That’s a blow!
Your hearing, and memory recall, is so much better than mine!Even in the smaller court-rooms you seem to hear more clearly than I.
But, of course, you are much younger than I!03

Who Is Conning Whom?
easyJamboDecember 7, 2017 at 22:32
‘..This is the BDO action against the adminstrators’
Thanks, eJ.
I have been trying to have a daily look at the Rolls of Court,but I wasn’t able to look in after 5.00 pm this evening.
That’s in my diary, for next week.
I keep looking in on the ‘Court of Session judgments’ page to see whether Lord Bannatyne has arrived at his judgment and published it.
It seems that the publication of a judgment can be several months after the date of the judgment.
I suppose that means that in some cases the parties are told long before the judgment is made public.
So, maybe Lord Bannatyne has decided , and King and the Takeover Panel have already [ since the date (30 November) when I got the email saying that the Takeover panel were still awaiting the decision] had the decision.
Probably not.
I suppose we have to watch the RIFCplc ‘investor’ page on the website,where details of an offer (if the decision was/is that King has to make an offer , by a specified date,or be held in contempt) have to publicised.
One wonders at how the judges cope! They hear very complicated , lengthy cases, have to ponder their decision and write their judgments, while still hearing new cases in Court. When do they find the time to write their judgments?

About the author