Pull My Strings

Ah right. Arthur Andersen were bent though so it's not impossible. Anyway, I take your point. I've no idea whether D&P are padding out their work to earn a little extra but that's a far cry from them being involved in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the creditors etc.

Nae idea. I just think people are being a little hasty in throwing around accusations about a subject which they really know little about. D&P could be doing a good job in difficult circumstances or they could be doing a relatively poor job in difficult circumstances but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest they are doing a terrible job or, worse, are bent.

Are you suggesting that the assets haven't been up for sale for four months?

Very true. It's not impossible that D&P are massively bent I just don't see anything in the public domain which would suggest they are.

Well they can apply to the court to reduce the transactions in the same way as the creditors currently sitting on their hands watching could apply to the court to stop the transaction before it takes place. Out of interest, which part of "the assets have been up for sale for at least four months and this is the highest offer" are people struggling with?

Indeed. But equally it's worth bearing in mind that D&P are a massive global business operating in a tightly regulated profession which demands the highest standards of probity. D&P themselves could buy Rangers and clear all their debts from one years net profit. Taking that into account it's difficult to see why they would leave themselves open to genuine accusations of wrong-doing. I'm sure it will all come out in the wash but there are genuine experts watching the process from interested parties (not least HMRC) and they've not uttered a peep of criticism. Meanwhile fans all over the country are pissing themselves at how shite and/or corrupt the administrators are. On balance, I reckon most or all of the accusations are misplaced.

Not as far as I'm aware. The liquidators will look at the whole process all the way back to Murray's time in charge and including the administrators but by that point it'll be far too late to stop the asset sale. If any creditors had misgivings about the sale price they only need to apply to the Court of Session to stop the sale. Not a single one has done so or threatened to do so. I'd suggest that's because, unlike most of the internet experts, they actually understand the process.

And yet not a single creditor apparently agrees with you. How peculiar.

Absolutely. Schedule 16 to the Enterprise Act covers the appointment and conduct of administrators and makes express provision for any creditor to challenge the conduct of the administrators. In particular check out Section 74 of that schedule. Throughout the process people have been laughing and pointing at the administrators and commenting that they're clearly corrupt and/or incompetent. I'd take all of that with a massive pinch of salt. The fact of the matter is that not one single creditor has challenged their conduct. If D&P were indeed making such a massive arse of it I would expect the creditors to have noticed and to have done something about it by now. It's to keep business running as a going concern if that will provide a better return for creditors than liquidation. Obviously they thought in the first instance that it would but were proven wrong when nobody came forward with a decent bid.

The act has been amended dozens of times but the rule about the use of similiar names in this context has been in place since 1986. The purpose of this rule is to protect the interests of creditors by allowing administrators to sell the goodwill and thereby increase the value of the assets being sold.

Nope. What D&P are doing is entirely legit (despite what most people in this thread seem to think). Rangers/Rangers' Assets have been on sale for months and the best offer came from Green. All this nonsense about the assets being undervalued is plainly wrong. The assets are worth what someone is prepared to pay from them which is £5.5M. What Whyte did was transfer assets out from the company and beyond the reach of creditors in order to commit a fraud against the company and ultimately against the creditors.

That's wrong, I'm afraid. Section 216 of the 1986 Act imposes a general prohibition on the re-use of company names but there are a limited number of exceptions to that general rule. One of the exceptions is when the entire business undertaking is sold by administrators and notice is given to the former creditors and the world at large of the new company and new name etc.

Don't be so sensitive toots. If you think that Alex Thomson tweeting something that everyone already knows is an update then you crack on.

To be fair, a first year law student could have answered that one and anyone in this thread who didn't know that already really needs to read more and post less.

Short answer: yes; long answer: there may be wriggle room. The law says you can't dismiss an employee when TUPE applies unless it is for an economic, technical or organisational reason. I'm afraid I'd have no idea whether "Jesus Christ have you seen that cunt's wages!?" would qualify as an economic reason justifying dismissal.

Yes, that's what I was saying although, if we're going to dance on a pin head their contract with the oldco would be terminated by their refusal to transfer. Strictly speaking. When the business undertaking transfers they can go or they can refuse to go and become free agents but they can't stay with the old employer.

At it's lowest level TUPE says that you transfer to the new employer on exactly the same terms as previously and with the same continuity of employment. You get to opt out if you want and therefore you would just walk away with nothing due to or by. I can't see why a player would agree to transfer (and thereby bind himself into a contract) if he wanted to leave. Let's say Everton want to pay £2m for Steven Naismith: why would he agree to transfer and allow himself to be sold subsequently when he could simply walk away and accept the £2m as a signing on payment (not that Everton would necessarily pay that but you get the gist of the dynamic).

I'm fairly certain they can walk away. In the event that the company goes into liquidation without a new Rangers being set up then they will be made redundant and will walk away. If a new Rangers is set up then their contracts of employment will transfer by operation of law into that new business undertaking and can be dismissed in very limited circumstances (which we don't need to consider right now) but they cannot be compelled to transfer to a new employer. I can't see any other scenario. I suppose it's possible that Green will attempt to 'buy' their registrations from Rangers but to what effect?

Behave yourself. At the time of contracting they had statutory authority to contract on behalf of the company which they did. Green paid £200k up front for that deal. It would certainly be open to creditors and/or the liquidator to challenge the contract (on what grounds, it's not clear) but there's currently a contract for sale. To suggest that they are dictating the terms of liquidation is just silly.

Well, they're free agents if they choose to be free agents. I'm sure a number will be happy enough to still be in job (the shite ones) Firstly, because BDO have no option without going to court.. There's a contract in place - you can't simply ignore it . Secondly, whatever happens to the sale of the assets, even if the contract with Green was reduced, the administrators would get paid first. I think it's worth bearing in mind that the purpose of s.216 is to protect individuals against being misled, it isn't to punish the business undertaking.

No.

That's better than the right one. If I've got a greenie left it's yours.

Pfft, the internet doesn't trouble itself with such trifling manners.

Hands up who spotted the deliberate mistake.

I'm an expert in this field although I can't comment on whether I'm a better lawyer than that other chap*. * I probably am since he's a Dundee fan.