Liverpool head back to High Court
Liverpool head back to High Court | |||||
Liverpool have returned to the High Court in London as the battle for control of the club continues. The Reds were close to being sold to New England Sports Ventures after co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett failed to win back control of the club. But the sale to NESV was dramatically halted by an injunction granted to Hicks and Gillett by a court in Texas. As proceedings began again in London, Singapore tycoon Peter Lim withdrew his £320m bid to buy Liverpool. In a statement he said: "The [Liverpool] board is intent on selling the club to NESV to the exclusion of all other parties, regardless of the merits of their bids." However, he added that if circumstances were to change, he might be persuaded to re-enter the fray. Representatives of Liverpool and the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS)went back to the High Court to attempt to nullify the injunctions with the Anfield board needing to sell the club so that RBS can recoup £240m in loans. The bank has already threatened to place the club into administration if new owners are not found before a 15 October deadline. The threat of administration and the nine-point penalty that would accompany it appeared to have passed on Wednesday when Hicks and Gillett's opposition to the sale was dismissed by the High Court.
At the heart of their tactics is a belief that the club is being undersold. They value it at £600m and would lose about £140m if NESV's deal, worth half that amount, went through. Hicks and Gillett have claimed that rival bids were not given due consideration by Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton, chief executive Christian Purslow and commercial director Ian Ayre. It had appeared that one of those rival bidders - Mill Financial - could emerge as a serious contender, with reports on Thursday suggesting it had acquired the shares of Hicks. However, a UK-based spokesman for Hicks insisted he had not sold his stake to the American hedge fund, which already controls Gillett's shares and has also been linked with a move for Wells Fargo's 25% debt stake in Liverpool. Fans angry with Liverpool farce As for NESV, BBC Sport understands that chief John Henry has not been put off his planned purchase of Liverpool by the additional delay in determining the club's future. "He is prepared to wait," said BBC sports editor David Bond. "Sources tell me he has binding agreements." Henry might not have to wait long. Tom Cruise, an expert in litigation at the Texas branch of US law firm Baker and Hostetler, suggested the injunction was only a temporary reprieve for Hicks and Gillett.
Hicks and Gillett's petition to the Texan court, which described the sale of Liverpool as an "epic swindle", also laid out a claim for more than £1bn in damages. And it was RBS which received the brunt of blame from the American duo, as the petition continued: "The director defendants were acting merely as pawns of RBS, wholly abdicating the fiduciary responsibilities that they owed in the sale. "RBS has been complicit in this scheme with the director defendants." Representing RBS in the High Court, Richard Snowden QC told High Court judge Mr Justice Floyd that the American owners' attempts to thwart the sale of Liverpool was "outrageous". He also said that Hicks and Gillett were applying for an order that the reconstituted board meeting, held in the UK after the original High Court ruling, was "a contempt of the Texas court". "The proceedings in Texas are plainly inappropriate," Snowden said. "This dispute involves an English football club and three English companies and has no connection with Texas other than that Hicks and Gillett may reside there. "It is a plain attempt to frustrate and impede the proceedings." The Liverpool board have vowed to move quickly to have the restraining order removed, claiming it is "unwarranted and damaging". | |||||
0 Response to "Liverpool head back to High Court"
Đăng nhận xét