Former Rangers owner Craig Whyte gets bankruptcy order lifted

[pete 2,499]

Former Rangers owner Craig Whyte gets bankruptcy order lifted over his debts of more than £20m

 

00:01, 11 Nov 2016

By Stuart Macdonald

 

WHYTE was made bankrupt over his debts owed to the ticketing firm Ticketus but has since been discharged after co-operating with his trustee.

 

 

FORMER Rangers owner Craig Whyte has had his bankruptcy order over multi-million-pound debts lifted.

 

Whyte, 45, was made bankrupt at the High Court in London last year over a debt of more than £20million owed to ticketing firm Ticketus.

 

But records from the Insolvency Service show that Whyte was discharged from his bankruptcy on October 29 after co-operating with his trustee.

 

 

 

Former Rangers vice-chairman Donald Findlay to defend club's ex-owner Craig Whyte in court

 

It means restrictions on Whyte’s ability to apply for credit have been lifted.

 

However, he cannot act as the director of a company and the process of recovering money owed to creditors could go on for several years.

 

Whyte described himself to his trustee as unemployed and his address was recorded as unknown.

 

 

 

Is this the ultimate troll? Former Rangers owner Craig Whyte pictured outside Celtic store after court case

 

Craig Whyte buying Rangers

 

Louise Brittain, one of Britain’s leading bankruptcy experts, was appointed as the trustee to probe Whyte’s finances.

 

Brittain, the head of Contentious Insolvency at London accountancy firm Wilkins Kennedy, has built a fearsome reputation while dealing with some of the country’s most high-profile bankruptcy cases.

 

 

 

Craig Whyte sacks top lawyer defending him in Rangers takeover fraud case

 

The bankruptcy petition was filed at the High Court in London over debts of £20.8million. Ticketus provided cash to help Whyte purchase Rangers in 2011.

 

The agreement was later terminated when the club entered administration in February 2012.

 

Whyte also faces criminal charges over his part in Rangers’ takeover and is due to go on trial next year.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/former-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-9236493

 

Sorry for the bad news.

[JFK-1 1,693]

Touch of the teflon Don about him. Surely sooner or later something has to stick. It eventually did even for the teflon Don.

[Bearman 9]

He's free to apply for credit ?

[der Berliner 3,744]

So Ticketus are still chasing him for the cash, I assume?

[RANGERRAB 3,674]

Ticketus are listed as an oldco creditor plus they chased Whyte personally for their cash.

Does that not mean t

hey could potentially recover their money twice ?

Edited November 11, 2016 by RANGERRAB

[Bluedell 5,627]

Ticketus are listed as an oldco creditor plus they chased Whyte personally for their cash.

Does that not mean t

hey could potentially recover their money twice ?

 

No. Whyte would only be liable for the amount that they failed to collect from oldco.

[calscot 0]

No. Whyte would only be liable for the amount that they failed to collect from oldco.

 

I still don't understand how oldco owe them a penny.That's not how business should work. If you get a loan for a car, that is secured on something other than the car, it's not the car that owes the money. IIRC he secured the loan on his businesses - that's who owes the money.

 

Also, the deal doesn't seem legitimate or even legal - it broke the conditions of the sale, and therefore should be void. At best it was a con job, and so I can't see how they can claim the money - more like they should be prosecuted.

Edited November 11, 2016 by calscot

[Bluedell 5,627]

I still don't understand how oldco owe them a penny.That's not how business should work. If you get a loan for a car, that is secured on something other than the car, it's not the car that owes the money. IIRC he secured the loan on his businesses - that's who owes the money.

 

If you get a loan for car you owe the money. In this case Oldco took the loan. Security only kicks in if the loan isn't repaid.

 

Also, the deal doesn't seem legitimate or even legal - it broke the conditions of the sale, and therefore should be void. At best it was a con job, and so I can't see how they can claim the money - more like they should be prosecuted.

 

I'd agree with most of that, although it needs to be proven that the law was broken and they don't appear to have been able to have done so. Ticketus must have known what was happening and therefore are morally guilty even if it can't be proven.

[calscot 0]

If you get a loan for car you owe the money. In this case Oldco took the loan. Security only kicks in if the loan isn't repaid.

 

But I don't see how the oldco took the loan - it was against the condition of sale, which is where this falls down - at least logically. Whyte's companies took the loan to buy oldco. It couldn't be secured on oldco as that would nullify the sale - and in fact it was kept secret as part of a scam, which if not technically against the law, you would expect not to be recognised as a legitimate loan in the eyes of the law. They are upholding nefarious practices by con men - Whyte AND Ticketus.

 

I'm not saying it is technically illegitimate, I'm saying it obviously should be, and shows great flaws in business laws which allow unscrupulous people to make money by lying to people and have an advantage over the scrupulous. We should be discouraging practices that nefariously leave loads of people out of pocket. To me, what happened should be criminal - and is in other aspects of law.

 

I'd agree with most of that, although it needs to be proven that the law was broken and they don't appear to have been able to have done so. Ticketus must have known what was happening and therefore are morally guilty even if it can't be proven.

 

But surely that morality while not prosecutable, should nullify their case in the civil courts? I have no problem with them chasing Whyte, but I will always struggle to see their claim on a company that they could not possibly legitimately finance the purchase of due to the conditions of sale.

Edited November 11, 2016 by calscot

[Uilleam 5,940]

I could be wrong, but Tcketus advanced monies to Whyte, on the basis of future ticket sales. This cash was held in escrow until the infamous £1 transaction, when it went, without touching the sides, to pay off the £18M debt to Lloyds Banking Group. Later advances were made on yet more future ticket sales.

Ticketus , post Whyte's crashing of the company, fell foul of Scots' Law, when the Court decided that it had no claim over the Company's assets, and thus it had to pursue Whyte for recovery.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Uilleam