GovanAllan 0 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 HMRC accept CVA's all the time. In a high profile case like this they need to justify it. As for those squeaky bums, that doesn't help our situation one bit. Theres a difference between a company in trouble and illegal practise, it's the illegal practise they are chasing and a CVA would scupper that investigation. They could have taken the view it was the club to blame and came after us, instead they have wished us well transfer the assets swallow the Newco pill and be on your way debt free. If you can get by the Newco stigma we have won a watch, yes we have a few hard years in front of us but I've been supporting Rangers for almost as long as I've been born I can take that to get my club in order. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,083 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 While we are at it, if D&P get through to some of the 25m they are chasing from Collier Bristow, who would get that now? The creditors, but I doubt they're waiting with baited breath, oh and D&P get 10%. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 While we are at it, if D&P get through to some of the 25m they are chasing from Collier Bristow, who would get that now? That case will either be dropped or tossed out of court IMO. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Interesting claim because that's not what Duff & Phelps and Charles Green have said today. Is someone telling porkies or are we just being fed misinformation by "the news"? (which news btw?) Both although one of the quotes came from Green the other I saw came from HMRC. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 While we are at it, if D&P get through to some of the 25m they are chasing from Collier Bristow, who would get that now? There won't be any £25m. Never was going to be. IIRC, it's not included in the CVA proposal for a newco scenario. The newco (if it happens) could persevere with the case, but I doubt they would. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,083 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 There won't be any £25m. Never was going to be. IIRC, it's not included in the CVA proposal for a newco scenario. The newco (if it happens) could persevere with the case, but I doubt they would. It would be up to the liquidators of the 'oldco' to carry on with the case would it not? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Both although one of the quotes came from Green the other I saw came from HMRC. Nobody is arguing that HMRC don't take a tough stance against CVA's where tax evasion is involved. The point is that they do still accept some CVA's under those conditions and in our case encouraged our pursuing of that avenue. We didn't offer enough and what we did offer incorporated too many variables. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Nobody is arguing that HMRC don't take a tough stance against CVA's where tax evasion is involved. The point is that they do still accept some CVA's under those conditions and in our case encouraged our pursuing of that avenue. We didn't offer enough and what we did offer incorporated too many variables. Makes you wonder if they know the outcome of the big tax case and they are due millions. You've also got to remember MIH are to their eyes in this as well, I think they fancy frying the big fish in this case and have threw us back this time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,083 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 From the CVA proposal that was sent out. In the course of disclosure in the Fund proceedings, it became apparent that the Company had wider claims against CB and Group in relation to the purchase of the Group Shares by Group. Consequently, the Company issued a claim form against CB and Group on 16 April 2012, seeking damages for claims wider than the Fund proceedings, in respect of the monies that were (and the Joint Administrators say should have been) in CBâ??s client account (the ―Claim‖) 5.5 As the High Court Proceedings are continuing, the Joint Administrators do not wish to potentially prejudice those actions by revealing their details in this Proposal. However, the Joint Administrators can confirm that the value of the Claim and Fund Proceedings could be in excess of £25,000,000. 5.6 The High Court Proceedings will be assigned to a new company (―LitigationCo‖) controlled by the Supervisors, meaning that any proceeds of this litigation (less the costs of the litigation and the formation, maintenance and dissolution of LitigationCo) will be available for the CVA creditors. The assignment will be made in such form as the Supervisors consider fit but shall, as a minimum, provide that the proceeds of the High Court Proceedings, less the costs thereof, shall be paid to the Supervisors and form a CVA Asset. 5.7 The Supervisors shall, following the CVA Date, pursue the High Court Proceedings in such manner as the Supervisors consider appropriate. The conduct, cost and benefit of the High Court Proceedings will be the responsibility of and under the control of the directors of LitigationCo who will be the Supervisors of the CVA. The Supervisors shall retain, out of the CVA Assets, sufficient funds as they require to pursue the High Court Proceedings and discharge any adverse costs. 5.8 Trial of the High Court Proceedings is due to commence between 1 and 31 October 2012. Following the issuing of a Completion Certificate, the directors of LitigationCo shall cause the dissolution of LitigationCo. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) Theres a difference between a company in trouble and illegal practise, it's the illegal practise they are chasing and a CVA would scupper that investigation. Why is that exactly when it didn't stop them raiding Ibrox during the aforementioned Stevens inquiry? You've got to wonder just how much of our current predicament can be traced back to that. Edited June 12, 2012 by UCF2008 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.