AND180Y

Here is the legislation there is the same for payee.

I was under the impression that he voiced his concerns to Whyte and was promptly flushed?

A few companies registered there (all dissolved). Recovery Scotland used to be one of them

Not quite how it works. If a director is unhappy with something going on in a company he can speak up at a board meeting and if that fails speak to shareholders if that fails and unless the concern is about criminality or a breach of the companies act then his only further sanction is to resign.

Whyte can't due to his impending director ban and the number of times that he has screwed HMRC over (his name is probably what hardened their stance) (bear in mind HMRC can now demand a deposit against future vat and payee!)

It doesn't. He was booted off the board for asking financial questions and therefore would escape culpability.

Not at the time of the insolvency event nor for most of Whytes tenure?

Below refers to a "normal company", I think there is something about the league membership that might make it more tricky. There would be no continuation company, if a phoenix company was to buy the assets of the current The Rangers Football Club it would be renamed as for example Rangers Realisations (retaining the company number SC004276) the new co might be formed with a name like New Rangers and a company number SC4XXXXX. (Both companies submit name change requests at the same time). Name and assets transfer to newco (now The Rangers Football Club) and liabilities remain with oldco (now Rangers Realisations) which would be liquidated. It wouldn't be the same company so no risks unless the board of directors was essentially the same. FYI The administrator must initially perform their functions with a view to achieving the first tier, which is to rescue the company as a going concern. Potential purchasers are often unwilling to buy the shares of a company in administration as this would involve them taking on the liabilities of the insolvent company. Consequently, in practice, this first limb is rarely achieved. If it is not reasonably practicable to achieve the first limb, an administrator may perform their functions with a view to achieving the second purpose. That is, to get a better result for the company’s creditors as a whole than would be likely were the company being wound up without there being an administration first. This limb can often be achieved by the administrator selling the business as a going concern, where a higher purchase price is paid than if the assets were sold on a break-up basis, which often happens in a liquidation scenario. If the second limb is not reasonably practicable, and only if the interests of the unsecured creditors as a whole will not be unfairly harmed as a result, the administrator may perform their functions with a view to realising the property, in order to make a distribution to one or more secured or preferential creditors. Even if this is the only limb of the statutory purpose that can be achieved, the administrator must still act in the best interests of all of the creditors of the company. As discussed below, the administrator will set out in their proposals (which are circulated to all known creditors of the company) how they intend to achieve the statutory purpose. Duties of an administrator An administrator must be qualified to act as a licensed insolvency practitioner and be eligible to act in relation to the particular company. When consenting to act as an administrator, they must consider whether there is any conflict of interest or other reason why they should not act as administrator and also declare any prior professional relationship with the company. A prior relationship may include advising the company and its directors prior to the administration, even where that advice is in relation to the administration (see Coyne and Hardy v DRC Distribution Ltd [2008]). Whether the administrator is appointed by the court or by the directors, the company or the holder of a qualifying floating charge (using the out-of-court route), that administrator will be an officer of the court (paragraph 5, Schedule B1 to the 1986 Act) and therefore must act honourably and fairly (see Ex parte James (1874)). The administrator cannot prefer a particular creditor because they were appointed by that creditor. The 1986 Act states that the administrator is required to manage the affairs, business and property of the company in accordance with the proposals, which have been circulated and approved by the creditors at the initial meeting of creditors. The proposals must include all prescribed matters stipulated in the Insolvency Rules 1986, including how the administrator intends to achieve the statutory purpose, the expected dividend to creditors, what fees and expenses have been incurred and the basis upon which the administrator will be paid. An administrator can only deviate from their proposals if they consider the change not to be ‘substantial’ or the court directs how they must act. Consequently, it is important for creditors to give careful consideration to the proposals and whether they wish to approve or vote against them. Under paragraph 68 of Schedule B1 to the 1986 Act, in certain circumstances, administrators are permitted to sell the business and assets of the company prior to the proposals being approved. There are also circumstances where the administrator is not obliged to hold an initial meeting of creditors. However, these topics are beyond the scope of this article.

Hence the reason Whyte had the money paid into a holding account with his lawyers. MI could only trace it back to there and receive a positive answer that the funds were there and available. Lawyers wouldn't release further info. Lawyers are good at law but shit at business and accept what they are told/presented with. (they get paid big bucks not to ask too many questions) Wrekin Construction fooled lawyers and accountants to get an £11million loan secured on the "Gem of Tanzania" that eventually sold for a bit more than it's true value, it made £8 grand at auction!!

Interestingly A few clubs will be worried about this.

Is Livingston not a town?

Guy in the pub earlier reckons Livi have appointed a new director, anything to do with MCL's story?

Well directors must always act in the best interest of Livi 5, various other clauses to strengthen Rankines hold on things even when he is out of the country. They have to inform him of meetings and if he cant make it he has the right with out board resolution to appoint a stand in or/and an alternate director. Plus loads of other stuff.

The accounts currently being discussed are for the year ended in 2010? So according to Nixon the next accounts for year ending in 2011 and due to be filed in March 2012 will show afurther loss of half a million and the accounts after that, year ending 2012 and filed in 2013, hopefully a break even figure? That would mean that the club would be circa £2million in debt, admittedly with nearly £1.5 million owed to the directors is that not a scarey thought? Interesting changes to the articles of association of Livi 5 and directors duties to it and not LFC.

75% in value have to agree to the CVA. So does that mean the initial money they "chipped in" to buy the club and pay off the football debts was a loan to the club or is the £900,000 in addition to that?

I think there are two discussions going on, one about the accounts the other about the part that the trust may or may not have had in the downfall of Massone. So as a clever guy studying business, what is your take on the accounts?

How/Why is he better placed?

He also said.

I think you would need to send them to Philadelphia for someone to be able to understand them.

fixed it for you.

Actually they were approved by the board on 26th July 2010.

Opinions can be argued upon, accounts filed with companies house cannot. I can't second guess Massone's logic (to be honest he is irelevant in this) but the facts and figures are there in black and white. Either things weren't as bad as they were made out to be or more likely going by the administrators statement that was filed with the court (ergo a legal document) these accounts are wrong. There is a legal obligation that accounts give a true and proper statement of affairs as at the date on them these don't seem to do that?

Surely though those accounts tell a different story? Looking at them there was no reason to go into admin in August as at 29th June? The year before show hefty contingent liabilities but there is no reason to suggest they had to be paid (to Massone etal?)

The accounts are to June 29th Livi didnt enter admin till August 18th/19th, the answer to your question is no.

Theres certainly something weird.