Hicks and Gillette still seeking Damages.

Seems like they're going to get their day in court after all.  Should be interesting to hear what really went on and if, as some believe, there were other buyers.

Red row: Former Liverpool FC owners to take RBS to High Court trial over sale of club at "substantial undervalue"
24 Oct 2012 17:53

Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett claim the club was sold at a "substantial undervalue" and RBS "deliberately" blocked their attempts to "refinance"

A High Court judge said two American businessmen who used to own Liverpool Football Club should be allowed to air grievances with bank bosses at a trial.

Mr Justice Peter Smith said it was questionable whether the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) had "truly distanced itself" from the "process" when the club was sold two years ago.

And he said former owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett should be given the chance to have evidence tested in the High Court.

The judge said he hoped that a trial could take place early in 2013.

Mr Justice Peter Smith's decision - announced in a written ruling - is the latest stage in legal action launched after the club was sold in 2010.

In March, RBS bosses asked the judge to declare them not guilty of "any dishonesty or corruption" at a High Court hearing in London.

Lawyers representing RBS said Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett had alleged a "grand conspiracy" but failed to produce "any evidence".

Liverpool was sold to New England Sports Ventures - headed by American businessman John W Henry - in a £300 million deal in October 2010.

Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett tried and failed to block the sale.

"RBS's contention... is that in April 2010... the former owners agreed to a structure of the group which involved them giving up control," Mr Justice Peter Smith said.

"They deny that they owed any obligations as regards giving the former owners opportunities to refinance.

"RBS contends that an examination of the internal documents relied upon by the former owners show that it had no role in the sale that took place."

The judge added: "The former owners' contention is that in reality... RBS controlled everything.

"As part of that exercise, RBS was determined to remove the former owners from the control of Liverpool FC.

"This, the former owners contend, was because RBS believed that would give them kudos in the eyes of the public, whereas its continued involvement with the former owners would operate negatively on its reputation.

"The former owners contend that the opportunities to refinance were frustrated by RBS deliberately to achieve this ulterior purpose."

Mr Justice Peter Smith said he had concluded that it was a matter which ought to go to trial.

"There is in my mind a question as to whether or not RBS truly distanced itself from the sale process," the judge said.

"In reality, what actually happened between April 2010 and October 2010 can only be discerned by a trial when the relevant players give evidence and their evidence is tested by cross-examination in the light of the contemporaneous documents."

He added: "In my view, it would be wrong and a denial of justice potentially at this preliminary stage to deny the former owners an opportunity to have a trial on this issue."

Mr Justice Peter Smith went on: "This matter should be brought to a speedy conclusion.

"I would wish directions to be agreed if possible with a view to this action... being heard early in 2013."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/city-news/tom-hicks-and-george-gillett-former-1397345

wonder if George still has that spade in the ground. IF RBS did prevent them taking the action the wanted then they may well have a case against RBS .Its all still about money for them isn't it.

Just to throw it out there, what if they are successful in proving club was undersold and there were other buyers? Is Purslows evidence crucial to the case after the email he had sent?.

Course it is mate, always has been. 

They're desperate now though, especially Gillett as he's facing bankruptcy again.  Hicks can probably survive as he has other income streams.

Just to throw it out there, what if they are successful in proving club was undersold and there were other buyers? Is Purslows evidence crucial to the case after the email he had sent?.

Well the case is against RBS not the Club so any damages will be paid by them not us, if that's what you're asking Shabs.

Well the case is against RBS not the Club so any damages will be paid by them not us, if that's what you're asking Shabs.

It was Debbs, but they can't gain the club back right?

It was Debbs, but they can't gain the club back right?

I doubt it mate.  They never wanted to keep us, they just wanted to make a lot of money from selling us, something that they believe RBS deliberately prevented.

It was Debbs, but they can't gain the club back right?

Absolutely no ruling or precedent could ever point to that Shabs. Besides as debs says its not their aim, they never wanted us they were chasing money. That's not changing now. And as powerful as they think they are, RBS can run rings round them and tie it up in a paperwork snowstorm or 25years if they so choose which I hope they do...

Good enough for them. Dispicable bas**rds.

Is this an action action against fsg or the club.

Hope they get nothing but are right fsg got club for a steal.

Just to throw it out there, what if they are successful in proving club was undersold and there were other buyers? Is Purslows evidence crucial to the case after the email he had sent?.

Is right Shabs.

Undervaluation is a comparitive term.
If you get your house re possesed and there is only one buyer at the auction then that is the value.

So how many other "genuine" ( non Hicks and Gillett stool pigeon ) buyers were there out there ?

If R.B.S. had put the club into administration HICKS AND GILLETT WOULD HAVE GOT  LESS VALUE THAN THEY DID against the debt.

The ramifications of administration to the club meant that H and G did OK.
The bank debt was cleared.

End Of.



Let the f**kers have their day in Court. Waste more money and rub their noses in it.

Strange case really.
Bit of a negative equity argument I think.
If you bought a house in the boom in Ireland it's quite likely it's halved in value.
Therefor if you went to sell it now would you sue the bank for the buyers getting a bargain?

Strange case really.
Bit of a negative equity argument I think.
If you bought a house in the boom in Ireland it's quite likely it's halved in value.
Therefore if you went to sell it now would you sue the bank for the buyers getting a bargain?

 

It would be good for the craic.
Has da price of Guinness gone down den ?

It would be good for the craic.
Has da price of Guinness gone down den ?

Yup.
Thank F**k.

Is this an action action against fsg or the club.

Hope they get nothing but are right fsg got club for a steal.

Neither Corbs, it's against RBS.

Hicks in bother again with the Texas Rangers finances.

Ex-Texas Rangers Owner Faces Motion to Compel
By DAVID LEE
      
DALLAS (CN) - The former owner of the Texas Rangers must answer questions about the source of capital contributions he allegedly made to the club, his now-bankrupt entity says in court.

Tom Hicks faces a complaint alleging that he raided the Rangers' coffers during his time as club owner to buy parking lots around Rangers Ballpark in Arlington and Cowboys Stadium.

The Dallas Cowboys football club opened Cowboys Stadium in 2009 and share several parking areas with the Rangers.

A few months after the Texas Rangers Baseball Partners (TRBP) filed for bankruptcy in May 2010, the club sold virtually all of its assets to Rangers Baseball Express LLC, an investment group led by Nolan Ryan, the team's current CEO and president.

In 2011, TRBP and court-approved administrator Alan Jacobs sued Hicks, Ballpark Real Estate LP and BRE Development LLC in Dallas County Court.

Hicks "continually breached his fiduciary duties to the Texas Rangers by using tens of millions of dollars of the Texas Rangers' money to pay the acquisition costs for land and to build parking lots and roads for the Hicks-owned entity called Ballpark Real Estate LP - an entity that ... now generates millions of dollars per year in parking revenue on events at Cowboys Stadium and is worth between $51.5 million and $75 million," according to the complaint.

On Friday, Jacobs and the TRBP filed a motion to compel Hicks to answer interrogatories and produce documents dated between 1998 and 2010 that show the source of funds he allegedly contributed to TRBP.

"Throughout this litigation, Hicks has contended that any benefit he may have obtained as a result of his transactions with TRBP are more than offset by the amount of voluntary capital contributions he made to TRBP," the 10-page motion states.

"This discovery is plainly relevant to refute Hicks' defense in this case, and the defendants' objections to TRBP's discovery requests should be overruled," the club added.

Though Hicks has characterized the request for information as "overbroad," the club said that the 12-year period covers Hicks' ownership of the team and is relevant to the allegations of self-dealing and fraudulent transfers.

Hicks must answer interrogatories because it is impossible to determine the repayment terms of funds Hicks loaned to the team and whether Hicks used borrowed money to fund the team, according to the motion.

"Without the requested discovery, the jury in this case may be left with the false impression that Hicks used his personal - as opposed to borrowed - money to fund TRBP operations, or gave money to fund those operations with no expectation of repayment," the motion states. "Plaintiffs are entitled to explain these facts at trial."

The Rangers' current owners sued BRE in August 2011 in Tarrant County Court, accusing them of demanding outrageous rent for the parking lots, even though a Fort Worth Bankruptcy Court ordered it negotiate an agreement at fair market value.

"In total indifference to the LUA [land use agreement], BRE and Hicks Holdings have tried to saddle the Rangers with a $3.5 million rental charge for use of the BRE property," the complaint stated. "This would equate to almost twice the amount the Rangers pay the City of Arlington to lease the entire ballpark."

In March, the Rangers settled their claims by entering into a multiyear agreement with the Hicks-controlled entity.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/11/05/51999.htm

Court of Appeal refuses to delay Liverpool FC trial

8 January 2013 | By Katy Dowell

The boardroom battle over Liverpool Football Club has attracted criticism from the Court of Appeal after the club’s former owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, attempted to delay the start of the High Court trial (see judgment).

The court battle, which is listed in The Lawyer Top Cases 2013, stems from a 2010 dispute about the £300m sale of the club to New England Sports Ventures (NESV). The pair allege that the club was sold at a “substantial undervalue” and said RBS “deliberately” blocked their attempts to refinance.

Mr Justice Smith ruled in October that the case should start in April and ordered the claimants to surrender security for costs. Hick and Gillett appealed this decision.

In this latest bout, 3 Verulam Buildings’ Ali Malek QC was instructed by Clyde & Co partner Paul Friedman for Hicks and Gillett to attempt to delay the start of the trial and vary the security for costs order.

It was argued that the claimants could not raise the funds to pay for the case should the trial begin in April and that the payment for security for costs should not be expedited, therefore delaying the case until late 2013 or early 2014.

In the judgment Lord Justice Lewison stated: “The parties’ positions fluctuated during the course of the [High Court] hearing, not least because Mr Malek dropped the bombshell that neither he nor his instructing solicitor could conduct the trial in June. But it was never suggested to the judge that the indication that he gave in his draft judgment back in August that he wished to see a trial early in 2013 was wrong in principle.”

Monckton Chambers’ Paul Harris QC, appearing for the joined defendant Sir Martin Broughton, argued alongside Erskine Chambers’ Richard Snowden QC, instructed for RBS, that the case should go ahead in April.

Lewison LJ emphasised the ferocity of the fight, in which RBS’s legal costs have already exceeded £1m ahead of the full trial. This comes as the judiciary prepares to fully implement the reforms put forward by Lord Justice Jackson aimed at reducing lengthy court costs.

The judge stated: “The extraordinary volume of paper, the extravagantly long skeleton arguments, which more resemble the Michelin Man than skeletons, and the inordinate citation of authority are quite inappropriate for an application dealing principally with case management decisions.”

According to the CoA ruling, the claimants have now paid £712,000 on account securing the future of the case, half of what they had offered to pay by way of security.

Lewison LJ, who sat alongside Lord Justices Tomlinson and McCombe, refused the appeal allowing the case to go ahead in April.

The dispute raises issues as to the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty and the duties on directors of group companies with potentially conflicting interests.

The legal line-up

For the claimants Tom Hicks and George Gillett, and their respective companies: 3 Verulam Buildings’ Ali Malek QC and Gregory Mitchell QC, and 4 Stone Buildings’ Richard Hill QC leading 3 Verulam Buildings’ Christopher Harris and Sebastian Isaac of One Essex Court, instructed by Clyde & Co partner Paul Friedman.

For the defendants Broughton, Purslow and Ayre: Monckton Chambers’ Paul Harris QC and Serle Court’s Philip Marshall QC leading Monckton Chambers’ Owain Draper, instructed by Couchmans partner Satish Khandke and Enyo Law partner George Maling.

For the defendant RBS: Erskine Chambers’ Richard Snowden QC leading James Potts of the same set and Fountain Court’s Patrick Goodall, instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer partner Patrick Swain.

For the defendant NESV: Erskine Chambers’ David Chivers QC leading Philip Gillyon, instructed by Shearman & Sterling partner Jo Rickard.

   

http://www.thelawyer.com/court-of-appeal-refuses-to-delay-liverpool-fc-trial/1016329.article

Court of Appeal refuses to delay Liverpool FC trial

8 January 2013 | By Katy Dowell

The boardroom battle over Liverpool Football Club has attracted criticism from the Court of Appeal after the club’s former owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, attempted to delay the start of the High Court trial (see judgment).

The court battle, which is listed in The Lawyer Top Cases 2013, stems from a 2010 dispute about the £300m sale of the cluGb to New England Sports Ventures (NESV). The pair allege that the club was sold at a “substantial undervalue” and said RBS “deliberately” blocked their attempts to refinance.

Lewison LJ emphasised the ferocity of the fight, in which RBS’s legal costs have already exceeded £1m ahead of the full trial. This comes as the judiciary prepares to fully implement the reforms put forward by Lord Justice Jackson aimed at reducing lengthy court costs.

The judge stated: “The extraordinary volume of paper, the extravagantly long skeleton arguments, which more resemble the Michelin Man than skeletons, and the inordinate citation of authority are quite inappropriate for an application dealing principally with case management decisions.”
   

The last paragraph and the flippant dismissal of the conduct of the defendants councils gives an insight into the perceived credibility of the claim being pursued.

Is there a case to answer regarding selling an asset below value?

Is there a case to answer regarding selling an asset below value?

I think only if the club was devalued fraudulently!

I think only if the club was devalued fraudulently!

So if they prove the club was sold undervalue price and they lost out due to the sale at a lower price they can win damages or try to regain the club by claiming fraudulent sale?

So if they prove the club was sold undervalue price and they lost out due to the sale at a lower price they can win damages or try to regain the club by claiming fraudulent sale?

Not if the directors were acting in the best interests of the company, i.e. the club, which they undoubtedly were.

Is there a case to answer regarding selling an asset below value?

An entirely relative proposition, which part of LFC could H&G lay claim too? This was an asset in every sense of the word prior to it's acquisition by the aforementioned.
Their atrocious dealings and dubious business methods brought the asset to the brink of insolvency and the learned judge took some extraordinary legal decisions to bring their destructive tenure to an end.
H&G always trod a contentious legal path and an example of which was to attempt to use some obscure legislation in a mid-west US state to overturn a ruling in the High Court, dispatched of course as they were.
Their commercially destructive methods were exposed and a law passed in the US to prevent such conduct in future transactions in the business world, suggesting of course that the methods H&G used were not ethical.

So if they prove the club was sold undervalue price and they lost out due to the sale at a lower price they can win damages or try to regain the club by claiming fraudulent sale?

If the books were cooked as they say, then yes unfortunately! Just wish they would scurry off into a corner somewhere and die.

Hicks and Gillett must really be hurting for money.  They are clinging to their teeth with this hopeless cause.  I don't see how they can possibly prove the club was sold undervalue without a counter arguement matching it.
 
They are going to have to have pretty compelling evidence to win any outcome.