ian1964 10,724 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 GIOVANNI DI STEFANO@DEVILSADVOKAT I am pleased to Confirm that Duff and Phelps have NOW replied to me in the substantive and extremely politely more than willing to assist On ANY question or documents that I require .... I applaud D&P for the straight forward reply that and we now have important substantive information 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1872 4 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 GIOVANNI DI STEFANO@DEVILSADVOKAT I am pleased to Confirm that Duff and Phelps have NOW replied to me in the substantive and extremely politely more than willing to assist GIOVANNI DI STEFANO@DEVILSADVOKAT On ANY question or documents that I require I applaud D&P for the straight forward reply that and we now have important substantive information GIOVANNI DI STEFANO@DEVILSADVOKAT D&P have even suggested a quicker way of getting further info other than s.994 application fair play to them I am truly amazed at the info 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1872 4 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 GIOVANNI DI STEFANO@DEVILSADVOKAT They do not deny 50 m stolen they just note my allegations and make no comment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,744 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Go GDS! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) the 50 million is a tad misleading. it overlaps. the allegation is 30 million paid out to the rfc group and never put into rangers and 20 million in fees. however as I understand it a fair bit of that money overlaps. ie 18 of the 30 to lloyds and most of the other 12 went on fees and is part of the 20. I suspect gds is bang on the money re this but whether its illegal or not may be in doubt. Edited July 20, 2012 by the gunslinger 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1872 4 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) GIOVANNI DI STEFANO@DEVILSADVOKAT I WILL BE POSTING THE FULL REPLY ON HERE SHORTLY very soon will be on the slider at Edited July 20, 2012 by Steve1872 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1872 4 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 GIOVANNI DI STEFANO@DEVILSADVOKAT RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB PLC DUFF & PHELPS RESPOND TO DI STEFANO’S ALLEGATIONS By Caroline Bayford and Tiina Paivarinta http://eturnkeysec3340002378c9.users.site2you.com/content/sitenewsreadmore/infobox/news/template/default/active_id/994 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1872 4 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 2012-07-20RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB PLC DUFF & PHELPS RESPOND TO DI STEFANO’S ALLEGATIONS By Caroline Bayford and Tiina Paivarinta Giovanni Di Stefano has finally received a response to the serious allegations made against a number of people in the ever continuing Rangers Football Club saga. Di Stefano accused those involved in the downfall of the club established in 1872 of ‘systematic fraud and theft’ and ‘corporate genocide.’ On Thursday he issued a video statement confirming his intention to apply to the High Court for an order under s.994 of the Companies Act and invited other shareholders to join him subject to obtaining independent legal advice. Di Stefano made public his allegations in full and we reprinted such. In the spirit of fair and accurate reporting and the editorial policy of reporting news as opposed to making news or what many media outlets now prefer of ‘spinning stories (SS)’ the reply from Duff & Phelps is printed in its entirety. “The Rangers Football Club PLC (In Administration) (“the Company” or “the Club”) Dear Mr Di Stefano I refer to your recent correspondence and telephone calls and apologise if you feel that there has been any undue delay in my response. I note that you have recently become a shareholder of the Company and I now provide my comments on the various matters you have raised in your letter dated 15 July 2012. In the course of your letter, you make a number of similar (and in some instances identical) assertions across different paragraphs and my response will deal with your principal concerns, rather than addressing each point on a line by line basis. It should be noted that many of these issues have already been addressed in great detail via the various statutory reports and media announcements issued by the Joint Administrators. If you have not already done so, I would recommend that you take the opportunity to review these documents, which I believe will greatly assist your understanding of the Company’s affairs and avoid any further confusion. By way of additional clarification, I would make the following comments on the main areas of concern raised in your letter: 1. On 14 February 2012 the Company was insolvent in accordance with criteria set down in S.123 of the Insolvency Act 1986, as quite simply, it was unable to meet its liabilities as they fell due. Principally, liabilities of in excess of £12m were due to HM Revenue and Customs in respect of arrears of PAYE/NIC for the tax year 2011/2012, notwithstanding a number of other liabilities both liquidated and contingent. Additional commentary on this issue can be found in the Joint Administrators Report and Statement of Proposals dated 4 April 2012 (“the Proposals”), together with full details of the circumstances surrounding the appointment of the Joint Administrators, including an explanation of any prior professional relationship with the Company. 2. Your entirely unsubstantiated assertion that a sum in the region of £50m was either “stolen” or “misappropriated “ from the Company is noted, together with your additional comments about the activities of certain individuals previously connected to the Company. The Joint Administrators make no comment on these assertions other than to advise you that proceedings have been instigated in the English Courts, to which a number of parties involved in the takeover of the Company by The Rangers FC Group Limited have been joined. Given that these proceedings are current, you will appreciate that no substantial details can be made available at this stage, other than those previously outlined in the Proposals. Furthermore, the Joint Administrators have a statutory obligation to report on the conduct of all directors of the Company who have held office in the 3 years preceding the date of the commencement of the administration. If you have evidence that criminal activity has taken place in relation to the Company, then you should contact Strathclyde Police and provide them with the same. 3. The various statutory reports referred to above provide full details of the costs and expenses of the administration process. For the avoidance of doubt, the Joint Administrators have not yet drawn any remuneration in respect of this matter and the total amount of legal disbursements paid to date amounts to around £129,000. Our further reports will give full transparency on all costs incurred and paid during the administration period. 4. I am aware of the provision of S.994 of the Companies Act 2006 in relation to unfair prejudice against the rights of shareholders. Given that the Company is currently in administration, and the Joint Administrators are officers of the Court, I would respectfully suggest that the analogous insolvency legislation can be found at Paragraph 74 to Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, under which an aggrieved member can apply to the Court in the event that his rights are prejudiced by the activities of an administrator. As you are now a shareholder of the Company, you are entirely at liberty to make such an application if you see fit. I trust that this information is of satisfactory for your needs and regret that I can be of no further assistance. For and on behalf of The Rangers Football Club Plc Peter Hart for Paul Clark Joint Administrator” Giovanni Di Stefano commented on the astounding reply that “it is noticeable there is no denial of the allegations save that they are ‘noted’ and no comments can be made according to D&P solely because there are proceedings on-going. I am always obliged at receiving advice as to how best to proceed against any that I accuse but this kind of takes the biscuit. As D&P fully understand that I am a shareholder and they invite me in a roundabout fashion to take any action I deem appropriate then either this case is so fully protected by those in high office that whatever anyone does it will make no difference or they are prepared for anything that comes their way. In either case as it is a shareholders right to take action I will do so.” 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 ...I would respectfully suggest that the analogous insolvency legislation can be found at Paragraph 74 to Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, under which an aggrieved member can apply to the Court in the event that his rights are prejudiced by the activities of an administrator. As you are now a shareholder of the Company, you are entirely at liberty to make such an application if you see fit. They are inviting GDS to take action against them in relation to their duties carried out as administrators. You would assume this doesn't cover any of D&P's activities regarding the company prior to and contributing to the cause of administration. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1872 4 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 DEVILSADVOKAT Mr Giovanni Di Stefano Could you please answer this question with yes or no Have you got proof of mr whyte ?? he exists yes "as a shadow director and de factor director" were the words I used I STAND BY THAT 100% DEVILSADVOKAT and if this is true dose this mean your implying Murray & whyte have manufactured this up until now ??? I have just stated what is it will be for others to decide what happens as DP say there is a court case in uk(which we did not know about before) so I will now pursue matters as outlined GIOVANNI DI STEFANO@DEVILSADVOKAT @kppurplestar shadow director is like silent partner someone who has control but not on paper 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.