LFC SOLD to NESV.

[keniget]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

Hang on... there is a new Twix?

And it's supposedly better than the original?

I'm just not so sure that's even possible.

 

[FoxForceFive]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

Just realised it's 7am us time. Mental time to have a hearing!

 

[FoxForceFive]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

[quote author=keniget link=topic=41783.msg1196834#msg1196834 date=1287124685]
Hang on... there is a new Twix?

And it's supposedly better than the original?

I'm just not so sure that's even possible.
[/quote]

It's nothing like the original. A good thing if you didn't like the original, like me.

 

[FoxForceFive]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

From the guardian blog last night:

9.29pm: More from the Dallas courtroom courtesy of the Dallas Observer (via Jean-Yves Mertenat) ...
Before [Judge] Jordan dismissed the parties till tomorrow morning, first thing, attorney Stephen Fox, repping Hicks and Kop Holdings, told the judge that "our folks are aggressively working out an arrangement with RBS to take care of the debt." Meaning: Hicks and George Gillett would pay the close to $500 million owed and then look for someone other than NESV to buy the team. Jordan said, "I hope those talks continue," but said he needs more time to consider the UK judge's ruling before making a decision concerning yesterday's temporary restraining order. Steve Stodghill, repping Hicks and Gillett, told Unfair Park after the hearing that NESV and the Liverpool board have agreed to hold off on closing till tomorrow morning, around 8 a.m. Dallas time, when Jordan's expected to rule on the TRO. If Jordan lifts the TRO, sale's a done deal. But if Jordan doesn't, says Stodghill, "the ball's in the court of NESV, and they can decide if they want to attempt to close the transaction knowing they're in violation of the TRO. That's a decision they'll have to make."

Hmmm, like rbs are gonna agree to that. Fat cunt is deluding himself.

 

[Comical Aly]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

Just tweeted by

John_W_Henry John W. Henry

"We have a binding contract. Will fight Mill Hicks Gillett attempt to keep club today. Their last desperate attempt to entrench their regime."

Come on Son.

 

[spider-Neil]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=41783.msg1196838#msg1196838 date=1287125119]
From the guardian blog last night:

9.29pm: More from the Dallas courtroom courtesy of the Dallas Observer (via Jean-Yves Mertenat) ...
Before [Judge] Jordan dismissed the parties till tomorrow morning, first thing, attorney Stephen Fox, repping Hicks and Kop Holdings, told the judge that "our folks are aggressively working out an arrangement with RBS to take care of the debt." Meaning: Hicks and George Gillett would pay the close to $500 million owed and then look for someone other than NESV to buy the team. Jordan said, "I hope those talks continue," but said he needs more time to consider the UK judge's ruling before making a decision concerning yesterday's temporary restraining order. Steve Stodghill, repping Hicks and Gillett, told Unfair Park after the hearing that NESV and the Liverpool board have agreed to hold off on closing till tomorrow morning, around 8 a.m. Dallas time, when Jordan's expected to rule on the TRO. If Jordan lifts the TRO, sale's a done deal. But if Jordan doesn't, says Stodghill, "the ball's in the court of NESV, and they can decide if they want to attempt to close the transaction knowing they're in violation of the TRO. That's a decision they'll have to make."

Hmmm, like rbs are gonna agree to that. Fat cunt is deluding himself.
[/quote]

the thing that scared me the most was Hicks' lawyers saying they are 'aggressively seeking refinance'.

 

[Portly]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

The American journalist I was referring to in message #5447 was from the Boston Globe, probably Joe Sullivan the sports editor.

BBC Radio 5 Live are saying that we should be getting news from Texas at around 13.00 British Summer Time. That's 12.00 GMT for those of you living in far-flung corners of the British Empire. 😉

 

[spider-Neil]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

9.29pm: More from the Dallas courtroom courtesy of the Dallas Observer (via Jean-Yves Mertenat) ...

Before [Judge] Jordan dismissed the parties till tomorrow morning, first thing, attorney Stephen Fox, repping Hicks and Kop Holdings, told the judge that "our folks are aggressively working out an arrangement with RBS to take care of the debt." Meaning: Hicks and George Gillett would pay the close to $500 million owed and then look for someone other than NESV to buy the team. Jordan said, "I hope those talks continue," but said he needs more time to consider the UK judge's ruling before making a decision concerning yesterday's temporary restraining order. Steve Stodghill, repping Hicks and Gillett, told Unfair Park after the hearing that NESV and the Liverpool board have agreed to hold off on closing till tomorrow morning, around 8 a.m. Dallas time, when Jordan's expected to rule on the TRO. If Jordan lifts the TRO, sale's a done deal. But if Jordan doesn't, says Stodghill, "the ball's in the court of NESV, and they can decide if they want to attempt to close the transaction knowing they're in violation of the TRO. That's a decision they'll have to make

 

[DHSC]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

7pm Singapore time.

>🙁

 

[FoxForceFive]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

Aggresovely seeking finance means nothing Neil. He's had a year plus to find this cash & hasn't done, getting 40m fine for not doing so.

He's not got the assets, simple as.

 

[Sunny]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=41783.msg1196846#msg1196846 date=1287126549]
Aggresovely seeking finance means nothing Neil. He's had a year plus to find this cash & hasn't done, getting 40m fine for not doing so.

He's not got the assets, simple as.
[/quote]


And he can kiss my big fat hairy arse

 

[Avmenon]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=41783.msg1196835#msg1196835 date=1287124714]
Just realised it's 7am us time. Mental time to have a hearing!
[/quote]

It is.

It's usually done only when it's a matter of great urgency.
Again, if the juge has a brain, i' becaushe's leart of te true facts regarding the application and is going to set aide the order.

 

[spider-Neil]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=41783.msg1196846#msg1196846 date=1287126549]
Aggresovely seeking finance means nothing Neil. He's had a year plus to find this cash & hasn't done, getting 40m fine for not doing so.

He's not got the assets, simple as.
[/quote]

fingers crossed, foxy. this is going to be a long but one way or the other it will be sorted today.

 

[mark1975]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=41783.msg1196846#msg1196846 date=1287126549]
Aggresovely seeking finance means nothing Neil. He's had a year plus to find this cash & hasn't done, getting 40m fine for not doing so.

He's not got the assets, simple as.
[/quote]

And so much for Mill bailing Hicks out anyway, they wouldn't be saying "aggressively seeking finance" if it was more or less sorted.

 

[DHSC]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

From SI.com

Can a Texas court block a British court from allowing the sale of Liverpool FC to the owners of the Boston Red Sox? If that sounds like a strange question, it's because it concerns a curious mix of conflicts of law, international banking law, and the fate of one of soccer's most storied franchises. It is also a question that could lead to a legal showdown at 7 a.m. Friday, Texas time.

As of now, the ownership and control of Liverpool remain in dispute, with different conclusions reached by courts in Great Britain and Texas and with resulting uncertainty over the enforcement of conflicting judgments. The core dispute centers on an ownership group led by former Texas Rangers owner and Texas native Tom Hicks and his partner George Gillett. The group insists that the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) which loaned the group money, and the Liverpool board consisting of chairman Martin Broughton and directors Christian Purslow and Ian Ayre, lack the legal authority to sell Liverpool to the Red Sox-owning New England Sports Ventures (NESV).

As part of the loan agreement, RBS obtained extensive -- but now disputed -- authority over Liverpool's financial decisions. Hicks insists that RBS wrongly prevented his group from selling the team for nearly $1 billion, which would have enabled the group to payback what it owed and pocket significant sale monies. RBS has instead sought to sell the team to NESV for $476 million, a less lucrative amount, but an amount from an ownership group that has guided the Red Sox to two World Series victories. Hicks' group is obligated to repay RBS and another lender, Wells Fargo, $453 million by Friday Oct. 15.

In the past week, Hicks unsuccessfully sought to use the London High Court to block RBS from selling Liverpool. The Texas native then turned to a court in a much more familiar setting. On Wednesday he sought and obtained a temporary restraining order from a Texas State court that, at least according to the Texas court, prevents RBS from selling Liverpool to NESV.

In his application for the order, Hicks charged that RBS deceived him and, despite contractual obligations, did not seek to obtain fair market value of Liverpool. In a move that has struck some RBS supporters as designed to help out the hometown guy, Texas Judge Jim Jordan granted the order. Jordan concluded that he had jurisdiction over the matter, even though Liverpool, its employees, coaches, and staff all play in Great Britain and do not play in the United States -- let alone Texas -- and even though the financier of the team is based in London. A hearing on the temporary order was originally scheduled for Oct. 25 and since rescheduled for Oct. 15.

On the other side of the Atlantic, RBS claims that the Texas decision does not govern a transaction that, its view, lacks any credible connection to Texas. RBS also maintains that in seeking the order, Hicks failed to inform Jordan of crucial pieces of information.

Instead of listening to a Texas court, RBS finds the British court system to be determinative. That is because London High Court Judge Christopher Floyd issued an order today essentially telling RBS to ignore Jordan's temporary restraining order and telling Hicks that he must accept the British court's decision by 4 p.m. London Time (10 a.m. Texas Time) tomorrow.

Which court is right?
Treaties between countries often provide insight over how to resolve conflicts of laws among court decisions in different countries. The United States and Great Britain, however, lack a general agreement as to the enforcement of judicial judgments. Treaties are unlikely to answer to solve this particular dispute.

A better source of law may be the wording of the lending agreements between RBS and Hicks' group. Some of the agreements may possess "choice of law" provisions, which dictate which country's laws resolve certain types of disputes. While a choice of law provision would not necessarily prevent another country's court from hearing a dispute, and may not contemplate disputes that trigger temporary restraining orders, it could nonetheless signal whether British or Texas law is determinative. That insight would then be used by both the British and Texas courts to best resolve their conflicting judgments.

Interestingly, at least one of the lending agreements between RBS and Hicks references jurisdiction. The Liverpool Company Articles refer to British courts as having jurisdiction in any winding up or dissolution of the team. The agreement does not, however, expressly state that such law is exclusive.

The best strategy for RBS and NESV is probably to convince Judge Jordan to remove, or decline to extend, the temporary injunction. According to reports, they have hired lawyers in Texas to do just that. Preliminary injunctions are typically difficult to have removed before formal hearings. At a hearing, RBS will likely argue that Hicks sought the restraining order in a deceptive way, since he purportedly neglected to mention to Judge Jordan that there had been a conflicting ruling on this case in England that very morning.

Hicks and his lawyers would have an opportunity to respond. They might argue, for instance, that because RBS did not seek maximum value for its sale, the British ruling derives from fraudulent behavior on the part of RBS. The Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, which Texas has adopted, stipulates that a U.S. court may not uphold a foreign judgment if it arises through fraud.

Hicks' lawyers could also employ arguments that are grounded in public policy, with a key U.S. commercial policy being that owners -- such as Hicks -- are free to sell their companies to whomever they choose and that RBS, a lending institution, should not be able to take Hicks' shoes as owner.

What happens if RBS succeeds in terminating the injunction?
The conflict of law would be removed and the London High court's holding would proceed. The sale of Liverpool to NESV would therefore take place.

In that outcome, Hicks could then try to identify a viable source of appeal for the London High Court's consideration. Given the High Court's clear holdings in favor of RBS, though, it seems unlikely that Hicks would find much support in that approach.

Hicks could also seek a temporary restraining order in Massachusetts, as NESV is based in Boston. By that point, however, a Massachusetts court may be unwilling to interfere with the transaction. It is also unclear that the lending agreements between Hicks and RBS allow for Massachusetts courts to hear contractual disputes.

What would happen if RBS fails to persuade Judge Jordan to remove the injunction?
RBS would then likely seek an appeal in the Texas court system. An appeal could take weeks to be heard. During that time, ownership of Liverpool would be in limbo and Hicks might insist that he is not obligated to repay the loan until the litigation is resolved.

RBS and NESV could instead ignore Judge Jordan's decision to continue the injunction. Doing so, however, could motivate Jordan to find RBS officials, and possibly those of NESV, in contempt of court. Ignoring a judge's order is virtually always a regrettable idea.

Other scenarios
There are still two other possibilities:

First, RBS and Hicks could reach a last-second contractual settlement that removes the litigation from British and Texas courts. A settlement would provide closure and certainty. Still, given the impending deadline and the deeply soured relations between RBS and Hicks, a settlement seems unlikely.

Second, Hicks could manage to repay his loan before tomorrow's deadline and thereby retake control of the team. In that situation, however, NESV could then seek a temporary restraining order to block RBS from discharging the loan, which it would be obligated to do if Hicks repays. NESV could maintain that Hicks had wrongfully prevented the sale of Liverpool before his repaying of the loan.

By Friday, we'll know more about how this dizzying sports dispute could be resolved or become even more complex.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/michael_mccann/10/14/liverpool.hicks/index.html?eref=sihp

 

[spider-Neil]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

hard to believe there is a game on sunday, I haven't been able to think of anything but this.

 

[Avmenon]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

[quote author=Portly link=topic=41783.msg1196842#msg1196842 date=1287125658]
The American journalist I was referring to in message #5447 was from the Boston Globe, probably Joe Sullivan the sports editor.

BBC Radio 5 Live are saying that we should be getting news from Texas at around 13.00 British Summer Time. That's 12.00 GMT for those of you living in far-flung corners of the British Empire. 😉
[/quote]

How does the daylight savings thingy work in the UK?

 

[Y1]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=41783.msg1196841#msg1196841 date=1287125565]

the thing that scared me the most was Hicks' lawyers saying they are 'aggressively seeking refinance'.


[/quote]

if they can refinance they would have done so ages ago.

 

[spider-Neil]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

Quote from: Alan_F on Today at 07:52:11 AM
Except the board of Kop Holdings has sold the club to NESV. If he pay tries to pay off RBS, I think we might see the law on apparent (or ostensible) authority come into play. NESV dealt with Broughton and the board in good faith on the clear understanding that they had the authority to sell the club. It was only at the last moment that Hicks and Gillett have attempted to muddy the waters.

As I understand it, if Broughton had the apparent authority to sell the club, it's sold. Any dispute is an internal matter between Hicks and the board.

*disclaimer - this is a layman's opinion and will no doubt be shot down by the legal bods*

from Alan_F, a mod on RAWK. any legal types, is this correct?

 

[Sunny]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

RBS and NESV could instead ignore Judge Jordan's decision to continue the injunction. Doing so, however, could motivate Jordan to find RBS officials, and possibly those of NESV, in contempt of court. Ignoring a judge's order is virtually always a regrettable idea.

Yet Hicks and Gillet have done just that.

 

[Sunny]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=41783.msg1196857#msg1196857 date=1287126935]

Quote from: Alan_F on Today at 07:52:11 AM
Except the board of Kop Holdings has sold the club to NESV. If he pay tries to pay off RBS, I think we might see the law on apparent (or ostensible) authority come into play. NESV dealt with Broughton and the board in good faith on the clear understanding that they had the authority to sell the club. It was only at the last moment that Hicks and Gillett have attempted to muddy the waters.

As I understand it, if Broughton had the apparent authority to sell the club, it's sold. Any dispute is an internal matter between Hicks and the board.

*disclaimer - this is a layman's opinion and will no doubt be shot down by the legal bods*

from Alan_F, a mod on RAWK. any legal types, is this correct?
[/quote]

Terrier will be able to answer that neil, you should ask him.

 

[spider-Neil]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

[quote author=Sunny link=topic=41783.msg1196858#msg1196858 date=1287126979]

RBS and NESV could instead ignore Judge Jordan's decision to continue the injunction. Doing so, however, could motivate Jordan to find RBS officials, and possibly those of NESV, in contempt of court. Ignoring a judge's order is virtually always a regrettable idea.

Yet Hicks and Gillet have done just that.
[/quote]

it's so annoying that we're playing by the book but hicks is using every dirty trick he knows.

 

[Farkmaster]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

That is a poor article. Different conclusions haven't been reached by two courts, only one conclusion has been reached (twice). The Texas court hasn't come to a conclusion.

Anyway, it seems that Hicks must have been delaying for some reason or another. Hopefully he failed to secure funding, because otherwise it'll be a big mess. I still think we'd have grounds to succeed regardless, and I know that regardless Hicks will be as difficult as possible, but nothing else happens between now and when the texas court inevitably throws out the restraining order, the situation will be quite clear. Come on.

 

[Avmenon]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=41783.msg1196857#msg1196857 date=1287126935]

Quote from: Alan_F on Today at 07:52:11 AM
Except the board of Kop Holdings has sold the club to NESV. If he pay tries to pay off RBS, I think we might see the law on apparent (or ostensible) authority come into play. NESV dealt with Broughton and the board in good faith on the clear understanding that they had the authority to sell the club. It was only at the last moment that Hicks and Gillett have attempted to muddy the waters.

As I understand it, if Broughton had the apparent authority to sell the club, it's sold. Any dispute is an internal matter between Hicks and the board.

*disclaimer - this is a layman's opinion and will no doubt be shot down by the legal bods*

from Alan_F, a mod on RAWK. any legal types, is this correct?
[/quote]

I don't think NESV is going to claim implied authority though.

That usually arises when a 3rd party doesnt have the full knowledge of the facts and thinks he's making a valid purchase and getting good title.

Everyone and his dog knew about the mess caused by Hicks.

 

[spider-Neil]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1196863#msg1196863 date=1287127325]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=41783.msg1196857#msg1196857 date=1287126935]

Quote from: Alan_F on Today at 07:52:11 AM
Except the board of Kop Holdings has sold the club to NESV. If he pay tries to pay off RBS, I think we might see the law on apparent (or ostensible) authority come into play. NESV dealt with Broughton and the board in good faith on the clear understanding that they had the authority to sell the club. It was only at the last moment that Hicks and Gillett have attempted to muddy the waters.

As I understand it, if Broughton had the apparent authority to sell the club, it's sold. Any dispute is an internal matter between Hicks and the board.

*disclaimer - this is a layman's opinion and will no doubt be shot down by the legal bods*

from Alan_F, a mod on RAWK. any legal types, is this correct?
[/quote]

I don't think NESV is going to claim implied authority though.

That usually arises when a 3rd party doesnt have the full knowledge of the facts and thinks he's making a valid purchase and getting good title.

Everyone and his dog knew about the mess caused by Hicks.
[/quote]

darn...

 

[mark1975]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=41783.msg1196861#msg1196861 date=1287127131]
That is a poor article. Different conclusions haven't been reached by two courts, only one conclusion has been reached (twice). The Texas court hasn't come to a conclusion.

Anyway, it seems that Hicks must have been delaying for some reason or another. Hopefully he failed to secure funding, because otherwise it'll be a big mess. I still think we'd have grounds to succeed regardless, and I know that regardless Hicks will be as difficult as possible, but nothing else happens between now and when the texas court inevitably throws out the restraining order, the situation will be quite clear. Come on.
[/quote]

I think that's what their "aggressively seeking" comment implies, they haven't found finance, otherwise they'd be making it known.

 

[Avmenon]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

But the reason why implied authority isnt relevant is because implied authority is only a factor where a party didnt have actual authority but SEEMED to have it in dealings with 3rd parties acting in good faith.

At the point in time when the NESV bid was accepted, my view is that the Board had full actual authority to deal with NESV.

My view is that Hicks knows that these legal machinations are going to fail, but this is just setting the groundwork for a damages suit ie 'the Board ignored better offers from Blackstone and Mill Financial and deliberately undervalued the club in breach of fiduciary duties to the shareholders'

 

[doctor_mac]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

Being widely reported this morning that Hicks' injunction was a stalling tactic to do a deal with Mill finance to pay off RBS. I've no doubt that Hicks is violating numerous undertakings (as well as the ruling of the High Court) in all this, but by fuck this c*nt is fighting like an alley cat.

 

[spider-Neil]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=41783.msg1196869#msg1196869 date=1287128059]
But the reason why implied authority isnt relevant is because implied authority is only a factor where a party didnt have actual authority but SEEMED to have it in dealings with 3rd parties acting in good faith.

At the point in time when the NESV bid was accepted, my view is that the Board had full actual authority to deal with NESV.

My view is that Hicks knows that these legal machinations are going to fail, but this is just setting the groundwork for a damages suit ie 'the Board ignored better offers from Blackstone and Mill Financial and deliberately undervalued the club in breach of fiduciary duties to the shareholders'
[/quote]

Av, so (in your humble opinion) even if hicks by some miracle did come up with the money to pay off RBS, unsecured thus bypassing the board, NESV would have grounds for saying, 'we had a signed agreement with LFC that was ok'd by a high court (twice)?

 

[etchy]

Re: LFC not yet sold to NESV (but we're getting there, maybe...)

[quote author=DHSC link=topic=41783.msg1196844#msg1196844 date=1287125876]
7pm Singapore time.

>🙁
[/quote]
ok, no more F5 for me. About to board a plane, and checking this via Internet terminal. I wouls have landed by 7pm. Hope there'll be great news then. All the best for us!