Topic: Internet Terrorists - fyi - court case update

[No666]

A High Court judge today said he did not trust two American businessmen who used to own Liverpool Football Club.

Mr Justice Peter Smith said Tom Hicks and George Gillett had "demonstrated" that they would "abuse" the court process if it suited them.

Texas-based Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett lost control of Liverpool when the club was sold to New England Sports Ventures - headed by another American businessman, John W Henry - in a £300m deal in October 2010.

The judge criticised Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett when hearing evidence at the High Court in London during the latest phase of litigation launched following the sale.

And he refused to allow Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett to have "full and unrestricted" access to private documentation featuring in the litigation because of fears about "potential misconduct".

The judge said an American lawyer representing Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett had twice misled an American court in October 2010 following the Liverpool sale.

He said Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett had given "no credible explanation" for that lawyer's behaviour and suggested they had taken a "Manuelesque - 'I know nothing"' stance.

"I do not trust your clients," the judge today told British lawyers representing Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett in the current High Court litigation.

"(They) have demonstrated ... that if it suits them they will abuse the process."

Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett tried and failed to block the sale of Liverpool before launching damages claims in which they alleged that the club was sold at a "substantial undervalue" and said the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and then Liverpool directors had "deliberately" blocked their attempts to "refinance".

RBS bosses and directors dispute the allegations.

In March, bank bosses involved in the sale asked Mr Justice Peter Smith to declare them not guilty of "any dishonesty or corruption".

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

The bank asked for declarations of innocence at a High Court hearing in London. Mr Justice Peter Smith adjourned that hearing to allow lawyers representing Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett to study more documentation produced by RBS. It is expected to resume in the near future.

Lawyers representing Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett today asked for permission to give their clients unrestricted access to the documentation.

RBS was opposed and said - given that their lawyer had "misled" an American court in October 2010 - Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett "couldn't be trusted" with the documents.

Mr Justice Peter Smith sided with RBS.

"In my view that was and remains a legitimate concern," he said. "They are entitled to be fearful about potential misconduct."

And he said RBS was entitled to have the privacy of its documents maintained.

He said Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett could not have "unrestricted access" although their British lawyers could study the documents and take instructions from their clients.

Mr Justice Peter Smith said Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett had sought a "restraining order" in Texas - after failing to block the Liverpool sale at the High Court in England.

He said an American lawyer representing the businessmen had "misled" a Texan court twice in October 2010 - "untruthfully" saying an application could not be made in London because it was "late" and courts were closed and saying a similar application had not been made in the UK when it had.

"No credible explanation has been given, ever, as to how it was a lawyer retained by the defendants was able to mislead the court in that way," said the judge.

"Despite numerous opportunities, the defendants have not availed themselves of the opportunity to explain how it came about."

PA

[TepidT2O]

Ah bless, poor tom and George

[MichaelA]

I hope that they're REALLY expensive lawyers.

[royhendo]

Meanwhile, as found by Zeb, the whole thing is featured in "Sociology" this month. http://durham.academia.edu/PeterMillward/Papers/1336650/Millward_P._2012_-_in_press_Reclaiming_the_Kop_Analysing_Liverpool_supporters_twenty-first_century_mobilisations_Sociology

[Niru Red4ever]

I hope that they're REALLY expensive lawyers.

By now they must have ran up a pretty bill

[jillcwhomever]

I hope it takes the pair of them down.

[kneeys]

I hope it takes the pair of them down.

I hope he is a hanging judge and strings them up.

[Alan_X]

Meanwhile, as found by Zeb, the whole thing is featured in "Sociology" this month. http://durham.academia.edu/PeterMillward/Papers/1336650/Millward_P._2012_-_in_press_Reclaiming_the_Kop_Analysing_Liverpool_supporters_twenty-first_century_mobilisations_Sociology

Interesting read that - will read in more detail.

[John C]

Meanwhile, as found by Zeb, the whole thing is featured in "Sociology" this month. http://durham.academia.edu/PeterMillward/Papers/1336650/Millward_P._2012_-_in_press_Reclaiming_the_Kop_Analysing_Liverpool_supporters_twenty-first_century_mobilisations_Sociology

That's amazing that mate. I'm proud to have been a part of it all.

[Rafa_La]

That's amazing that mate. I'm proud to have been a part of it all.

Sterling effort.
Most able campaign leaders too.
True REDs all

[No666]

Interesting read that - will read in more detail.

Nothing we didn't analyse for ourselves, really, except in academic language. Glad the wee Deep-Fried-Mars-Bar-eater got a proper credit alongside Alan Kyall, though.

[royhendo]

There's a lot more to it all than Brian Reade or the Sociologist know, that's the thing.

Exhibit A: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/04/27/mill-financial-suing-royal-bank-of-scotland-over-liverpool-fc-sale-following-secret-and-clandestine-activities-100252-30849613/#ixzz1tEcfUxQd

[No666]

Interesting, roy. Didn't RBS have senior debtor privileges? As I remember it, Gillett was borrowing twice against the same asset to retain that asset.

[Zeb]

Gillett took out a loan which used shares in a company as security. Those shares were presumably in the company which ultimately had control of his half of the club. Nothing about Mill Financial made it to Company House though. So effectively the security was worthless.

Interesting that Mill Financial's papers have them saying both that they'd have worked with the owners towards a future sale as well as claiming that they could have taken ownership themselves.

Stinky one and a lot of questions in that Roy. Biggest one which jumps out right now is - 'who were they all thinking they'd be selling to?'. Hicks was sure if he dug in long enough, he'd make a profit on the sale. Mill Financial are now chasing RBS over $70m which they loaned Gillett and because they were willing to invest sufficiently to buy a football club and maybe sell it on down the line for a profit better than what they get for doing credit card rate business loans?

[planet-terror]

Meanwhile, as found by Zeb, the whole thing is featured in "Sociology" this month. http://durham.academia.edu/PeterMillward/Papers/1336650/Millward_P._2012_-_in_press_Reclaiming_the_Kop_Analysing_Liverpool_supporters_twenty-first_century_mobilisations_Sociology

Will give that a read after work,thanks 

[Alan_X]

Nothing we didn't analyse for ourselves, really, except in academic language. Glad the wee Deep-Fried-Mars-Bar-eater got a proper credit alongside Alan Kyall, though.

I think it's more the way it's being seen by others.

[El Festino]

Liverpool FC sale court case is being held in private

A COURT hearing which could finally reject former Liverpool FC owner Tom Hicks’ claims the sale of the club was “an epic swindle” is being held in private.

Mr Justice Peter Smith yesterday ruled a three-day legal hearing at the High Court in London will remain behind closed doors.

The application for privacy was sought by the Royal Bank of Scotland which is seeking a judgement it acted with propriety during the sale of the Reds to Fenway Sports Group (FSG).

It also wants a declaration it acted properly while pursuing the £237m loaned to Tom Hicks and his former co-owner George Gillett.
Click here to find out more!

The bank’s pursuit of the debt ultimately led to Hicks and Gillett losing control of the club and paved the way for Boston businessman John Henry and his consortium to purchase Liverpool for £300m. This week’s court case comes after a two-month hiatus during which Clyde and Co, lawyers representing Hicks, have been scrutinising extra documents released by RBS following a disclosure ruling by Mr Justice Smith in March.

It was presumed the break would allow the Americans to finally decide how to proceed with their claim of an ‘epic swindle’, or if they were resigned to dropping their multi-million pound litigation altogether.

RBS, FSG, Reds managing director Ian Ayre, former managing director Christian Purslow and former club chairman Martin Broughton – directors at the time of the sale – all have legal representatives in the High Court.

The ECHO yesterday challenged the decision to hold these proceedings in private.

But Mr Justice Smith indicated the need for confidentiality on behalf of RBS trumped any arguments of open justice or the obvious strong public interest in the case from millions of Liverpool fans at home and abroad.

A summary judgement will be delivered, probably in several weeks time, part of which may be deemed public, but a large portion of which could still remain hidden.

RBS is concerned certain financial disclosures could damage their reputation if discussed in public.

Wonder what RBS have to hide?

[Nessy76]

RBS is concerned certain financial disclosures could damage their reputation if discussed in public.

Wonder what RBS have to hide?

Probably nothing much. Just terms of the loan they offered. They don't want similar customers asking why they didn't get the same deal etc etc.

[TepidT2O]

Probably nothing much. Just terms of the loan they offered. They don't want similar customers asking why they didn't get the same deal etc etc.

Indeed, they are innocent until they are proven guilty (which they won't be), so why should they have to disclose potentially sensitive commercial information as a result of a mendacious claim against them?

[lfc786]

Meanwhile, as found by Zeb, the whole thing is featured in "Sociology" this month. http://durham.academia.edu/PeterMillward/Papers/1336650/Millward_P._2012_-_in_press_Reclaiming_the_Kop_Analysing_Liverpool_supporters_twenty-first_century_mobilisations_Sociology

that's amazing thanks for that especially because i can use it in my sociology exam 

[electricghost]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-26/rbs-wins-dismissal-of-mill-financial-claim.html


RBS Wins Dismissal of Mill Financial Claim

By Chris Dolmetsch - Jul 26, 2012 5:35 PM GMT

   
Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc won the dismissal of a breach-of-contract claim in a lawsuit brought by a lender over a $70 million personal loan to former Liverpool soccer club owner George Gillett.

Mill Financial sued Gillett in November 2010 in New York state court over the loan, seeking $117 million in principal, fees and legal expenses. The Springfield, Virginia-based lender added Edinburgh-based RBS to the suit last year.

Liverpool’s banks forced a sale of the club to Boston Red Sox owner John W. Henry’s New England Sports Ventures -- now known as Fenway Sports Group -- for 300 million pounds ($471 million) in October 2010 after Gillett and Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks failed to pay back debt.

New York State Supreme Court Justice Eileen Bransten in an order dated yesterday granted a motion by RBS to dismiss the breach of contract claim, while denying a motion to throw out a second claim for breach of implied of covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Mill Financial seeks “purely consequential” damages in the suit based on the theory that it lost its ability to profit from related transactions, a legal remedy that was barred from a contract between Mill Financial, RBS and Wachovia Bank, Bransten wrote.
‘General Damages’

“Plaintiffs have not alleged that they sustained general damages as a result of RBS’ breach of the Tri-Party Agreement, nor have they provided any affidavit in support of this contention,” Bransten said. “Plaintiffs allege only consequential damages that stem from their preclusion from either refinancing the club’s debt to RBS or buying the club outright.”

Bransten gave the plaintiffs 30 days to refile the claim to include damages that aren’t prohibited by the agreement.

Ed Canaday, a spokesman for Royal Bank of Scotland, declined to comment on the ruling in a telephone interview. Tad O’Connor, an attorney with Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP who is representing Mill Financial, declined to comment immediately.

The case is Mill Financial LLC v. Gillett, 10-652055, New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan (New York County).

[planet-terror]

i dont know whats more exciting,,this or the Aquilani saga..