ian1964 10,563 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Rangers have lodged a counter-claim against former chief executive, accusing him of being in breach of his £400,000-a-year contract. Former Rangers chief executive Martin Bain has dropped a move to secure further details of the club's tax debts. Lawyers acting for the ex-director had brought forward the attempt to secure more information ahead of Mr Bain's £900,000 compensation claim against the Ibrox club scheduled to be heard this summer. At the Court of Session on Tuesday, Nicholas Ellis QC, for Mr Bain, said he was seeking to explore the club's financial position on two specific issues, but following debate before Lord Hodge he indicated that the motion, which was opposed by Rangers, would be withdrawn. Mr Bain has already secured a warrant of arrestment to freeze £480,000 assets at Ibrox after the judge ruled that there was a real risk of insolvency if an outstanding £49m tax case goes against the club. The former Ibrox director is suing the firm, alleging breach of contract following the takeover at Rangers FC by venture capitalist Craig Whyte from the former owner Sir David Murray. In the action, Mr Bain claims that his salary from December 2009 to December 2012 was agreed at £400,000 per year, while he was also in line to receive bonuses. He maintains the remuneration was not excessive for the position. The former chief executive maintains the committee had "a difficult relationship" with Mr Whyte in the run up to the take over and after the shares changed hands he "took steps to remove those who he considered were not wholly committed to him personally". Mr Bain states in court papers that he was suspended at a board meeting when in America on business on May 23, 2011, and did not return to work. He denies the Rangers counter-claim that he was in breach of contract or of fiduciary duty. He resigned from his post in June 2011. The former chief executive claims that the takeover of the club was concluded in the full knowledge of the extremely substantial potential tax liability faced by Rangers in its case against HM Revenue and Customs. In the summons lodged with the court, Mr Bain claims the takeover was structured so that it has the effect that Mr Whyte will enjoy priority over other creditors, particularly HMRC, in the event of insolvency. Rangers are contesting the case, which is due to be heard in August. They also maintain that if they are liable to pay compensation for breach of contract, which they deny, the amount sought is excessive. The Ibrox club contends that Mr Bain used his position with Rangers to secure "excessive and unwarranted financial benefits" for himself at a time when Rangers were not in a secure financial position. At the Court of Session on Tuesday, a timetable was set out between lawyers for Mr Bain and Rangers FC Plc for the lodgings of productions and witness statements in the case. Former finance director at Ibrox Donald McIntyre settled a £300,000 damages claim out of court with Rangers in December. Mr McIntyre had also had £300,000 of Rangersâ?? assets frozen through a court order in the action suing the club for damage to his reputation. In his first TV interview since taking over the club, Mr Whyte told STV News the club suspended Mr McIntyre and Mr Bain as they were being "investigated". He added: "We will fight the court cases. These are people who have taken a lot of money out of Rangers over the years and maybe havenâ??t done the best of jobs in running the business. And I think they have a cheek in saying some of the things they say, in suing Rangers for even more money." The latest round of hearings in the £49m tax case are taking place at the first tier tribunal in Edinburgh this week and are expected to conclude on Wednesday. Further hearing dates could be fixed in the tax case, or a judgment on it released in between four to six weeks' time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Can't wait to see the end of all the potential court cases. It seems to be one after another. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 They managed to settle up with McIntyre, so it would be nice if they could just get the Bain case settled as well rather than letting it drag out in court. The club are making out that they have a case against Bain, but it wouldn't surprise me if they really don't. In saying that, Bain's claim did seem to be extremely excessive. A million pounds is a lot of dosh. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 They managed to settle up with McIntyre, so it would be nice if they could just get the Bain case settled as well rather than letting it drag out in court. The club are making out that they have a case against Bain, but it wouldn't surprise me if they really don't. In saying that, Bain's claim did seem to be extremely excessive. A million pounds is a lot of dosh. It is a lot of money to the average Joe, that is for sure. However, if he is adamant that he did not breach his contract then he is well within his rights to sue the clulb for the remainder of his contract - and it seems he had 2 yrs left on that contract at 400k. So there is 800k, and then he would have been due bonuses. I dont think that his demand is excessive under the terms of his contract IF he isnt in breach. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
capstans 0 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 criminal, should be facing an inquiry for his role at the club, absolute brass neck and without an ounce of shame a real murrayite. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 criminal, should be facing an inquiry for his role at the club, absolute brass neck and without an ounce of shame a real murrayite. Do you have any evidence whatsoever, to support your claim that he is a "criminal" or "should be facing an inquiry for his role at the club". If so you should turn it over to the proper authorities. Isn't it much more likely that all he did was his job, and in particular as part of the Independent Directors, Mr Whyte failed to convince him that he had the cash to run the Club and as we end up in one court room after another isn't that proving to be the case? In essence Mr Murray was his employer so why shouldn't he have supported him and his aim to find a suitable buyer for the Club. "The former chief executive maintains the committee had "a difficult relationship" with Mr Whyte in the run up to the take over and after the shares changed hands he "took steps to remove those who he considered were not wholly committed to him personally"." That sounds entirely plausible to me. As most people who have posted on this topic previously agree, Mr Whyte should have negotiated a pay off with Mr Bain (and Mr McIntyre) and thus saved the embarassment for the Club of having its dirty linen washed in public and a heck of a legal bill to boot. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,424 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 The BBC article has some further info ... Martin Bain drops bid for details of Rangers tax debts Rangers former chief executive Martin Bain has dropped a legal bid to secure more details of the club's tax debts. His lawyers had brought forward the move ahead of his damages claim against his former employer. He is pursuing the Ibrox club for £900,000 in a compensation case due to be heard this summer. Following debate at the Court of Session Nicholas Ellis QC indicated a motion to explore the club's finances further would be dropped. Bain had been seeking more details of Rangers' tax debt, and of claimed assignation of ticket money. The ex-director has already secured a £480,000 order to ring fence assets at the club after the judge ruled that there was a real risk of insolvency if an outstanding £49m tax bill case goes against his former employer. He is suing the firm alleging breach of contract following the takeover at Rangers FC by venture capitalist Craig Whyte from the former owner Sir David Murray. 'Difficult relationship' Mr Bain said in the action that his salary from December 2009 to December 2012 was agreed at £400,000 per year and he was in line to receive bonuses. He maintains the remuneration was not excessive for the position. He said Sir David had been trying to sell his interest in the club and about May last year reached an agreement with Mr Whyte to purchase the shares he controlled for £1 - with the new owner taking over the club's debt to its bankers. Mr Bain said in the run up to the transfer the board had appointed an independent committee, including him, to represent the 26,000 minority shareholders and to look at the ramifications of the potential sale. The former chief executive maintains the committee had "a difficult relationship" with Mr Whyte in the run up to the takeover and after the shares changed hands he "took steps to remove those who he considered were not wholly committed to him personally". Mr Bain said he was suspended at a board meeting when in America on business on 23 May and did not return to work. He said in subsequent press interviews Mr Whyte said that he would not return to the club. Financial benefits He denies that he was in breach of contract or of fiduciary duty. Mr Bain claims that the transfer deal over the club was concluded in the full knowledge of the extremely substantial potential tax liability faced by Rangers and that it was structured so that it has the effect that Mr Whyte will enjoy priority over other creditors, particularly revenue and customs, in the event of insolvency. Rangers is contesting the damages case by Bain, which is due to be heard over three weeks later this year, and maintain the claim against them should be dismissed. The club also maintain that if they are liable to pay compensation for breach of contract, which it denies, the amount sought is excessive. The club contends that Mr Bain used his position with Rangers to secure "excessive and unwarranted financial benefits" for himself at a time when the club was not in a secure financial position. It is also alleged that he acted in a way that undermined the trust and confidence of Rangers plc in him well in advance of the interviews given by Mr Whyte. Rangers said that following the share sale to The Rangers FC Group Ltd bank borrowings of about £18m were repaid, with the group then becoming the major creditor. The last line indicates that Whyte apparently put somewhat more than just 1 pound into Rangers FC. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 The BBC article has some further info ... The last line indicates that Whyte apparently put somewhat more than just 1 pound into Rangers FC. Not necessarily, it depends on who financed the offshore company and whether it borrowed the money from another part of the LBG. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
capstans 0 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Of course bain was a top class ceo, the club got its self into all sorts of financial holes but baldy was only ceo so it wouldn't be his fault then. He was to busy giving himself bonuses and neglecting his fiduciary duties, lower than a snakes belly. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Of course bain was a top class ceo, the club got its self into all sorts of financial holes but baldy was only ceo so it wouldn't be his fault then. He was to busy giving himself bonuses and neglecting his fiduciary duties, lower than a snakes belly. That would ne "NO" then I take it. In what way did he "neglect his fiduciary duties"? As part of the Independent Directors Group, he was protecting the rights of 26,000 small shareholders including me and events are gradually proving them correct in their opinion. Edited January 18, 2012 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.