Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Drooper]

So, theres nothing the creditors can do about the sale of assets, prior to the CVA? Im thought I read somewhere it needed there approval

I'm pretty sure they could take out some form of injunction on the basis that the asset sale price isn't realistic/genuine market value - ie: the assets are worth more than the £11M Big Bad Bill is allegedly going to pay.

ETA: if Ticketus and HMRC have half a brain between them, they'll be seeking an independent market valuation of Rangers' assets (Ibrox & Murray Park most obviously).

Edited May 4, 2012 by Drooper

[Heidthebaw]

So a guys ear was munched in a pub called Whispers, you couldn't make it up

The best thing I can say about Tranent is that they are not over burdened with scholarship and indeed it's a very shallow gene pool.

That's what my friend says and he works at the local high school so he may well have a bias

[Homer Thompson]

At least 75% of the companies creditors must agree to the proposed CVA, once agreed, the CVA proposal is approved and the CVA becomes legally binding. All interest and further charges are then frozen.

A comparison must be seen to be in the creditors best interests, compared to 'winding up' where the companies assets would be sold at auction, so the total amount offered in the CVA proposal over 5 years must be worth more to the creditors than forced sale of goods at auction, 'winding up' (basically, total up the companies assets at 20p in the pound and make sure the offer to the creditors is slightly more).

so there you go, dumb n dumber think HMRC and ticketus are going to accept this pittance and let windy miller sail away with the assets whenn the could be sold for more at auction. the cooncil should buy greyskull and turn it into a massive landfill site, think how much shite you coul fit in there.

Sorry, I know how the CVA works - I was referring to the sale of the assets to the newco.

I'm pretty sure they could take out some form of injunction on the basis that the asset sale price isn't realistic/genuine market value - ie: the assets are worth more than the £11 Big Bad Bill is allegedly going to pay.

ETA: if Ticketus and HMRC have half a brain between them, they'll be seeking an independent market valuation of Rangers' assets (Ibrox & Murray Park most obviously).

Yeah, that does seem to be their only option.

[Drooper]

The best thing I can say about Tranent is that they are not over burdened with scholarship and indeed it's a very shallow gene pool.

That's what my friend says and he works at the local high school so he may well have a bias

Needle exchange?

[AndyM]

So, theres nothing the creditors can do about the sale of assets, prior to the CVA? Im thought I read somewhere it needed there approval

If assets were being sold as RFC1872 then yes they could. But Miller will move them all to RFC2012 which the creditors will have no claim over.

Worth posting this again.

"What is a hive down?

A hive down is a form of reorganisation of a company whereby a business or businesses are transferred to a subsidiary company. It is a common restructuring technique whereby the profitable parts of a business, or valuable assets of an existing company are transferred or hived down to a newly formed subsidiary of that company

It is the simplest possible form of company reconstruction. A company in formal insolvency proceedings will sell its business – for a monetary price or shares - to a wholly owned subsidiary which does not have the burden of the liabilities incurred by the original company. It is then possible for the new company to be transferred or sold to the creditors as part of a voluntary arrangement.

The old company will be left with its historical debt & the new company will have assets & a clean balance sheet.

As soon as the old company has completed its restructuring it will own all the shares in the new company. These will have been issued at a value which is representative of the shares which it transferred to the new subsidiary company.

The new company will be protected from the risks & liabilities of the original business following the hive down. This means that if the original company later goes into liquidation its creditors will have no claim on the assets of its new subsidiary. There is less risk of the valuation regarding the transfer of assets to the new company from the old being challenged in a hive down than with other options, & this is one of the main advantages of using this process.

The main disadvantage of a hive down is that as the old company will remain a shareholder of the new, if the old company went in to liquidation, the liquidator would control that shareholding & thus also the new company.

The process of hive down is therefore mainly used as an interim measure in order to protect the major assets of the original company prior to their transfer either to a third party or another company belonging to the parent company owner/s. In effect it allows the ultimate purchaser to acquire a 'clean' company which does not come with any bad history or unforeseen risks & liabilities.

This method of reorganisation may also be used to preserve the benefit of trading losses in the original company.

http://www.spw-busin.../hive-down.html

"

[Nutz_the_Squirrel]

Has £500k been paid yet?

[Jussy]

I'm pretty sure they could take out some form of injunction on the basis that the asset sale price isn't realistic/genuine market value - ie: the assets are worth more than the £11 Big Bad Bill is allegedly going to pay.

ETA: if Ticketus and HMRC have half a brain between them, they'll be seeking an independent market valuation of Rangers' assets (Ibrox & Murray Park most obviously).

This is the understanding I've come to about the sale of assets too. They can be sold off prior to CVA agreement with no consultation with creditors. Apparently it's called an administrators' sale. Presumably the thought is that D&P have had the assets valued themselves, weighed up the options of selling on the open market or selling to newco, decided which is in the best interest of the creditors. Basically, it's legal because the admins are assumed to be getting the best deal for creditors so their judgement is trusted.

I'm not certain about the process of appeal by creditors, but I'm pretty sure they can take it to court if they believe they're being shafted by the admins.

[Drooper]

Yeah, that does seem to be their only option.

You have to wonder what they would have to lose by doing this in any event.

It seems madness that they might consider anything other than this course of action, but, based on how this saga has panned out thus far, absolutely nothing would surprise me.

[pansypotterthedirtyrotter]

Has D&F done a proper job towards the creditors though ?

they haven't attempted to sell players yet, who would bring in decent ammounts. and selling greyskull, murray park and the car park would raise more than the £11m millers offering, so you could say dumb n dumber are in effect putting assets out of reach of the creditors. i wonder if ticketus or HMRC will say anything about this.

[AndyM]

Has D&F done a proper job towards the creditors though ?

That's certainly open to debate.

But they have 2 major responsibilities in an insolvency.

1 to try to keep the business trading as a going concern.

2 to try to get a return for the creditors.

It's a fine line and one I don't think D&P have trod well at all.

[pozbaird]

Has D&F done a proper job towards the creditors though ?

Not a chance surely. At a business losing money hand over fist, here we are since Feb 14, and Ally McCoist, Ian Durrant, Kenny MacDowall, Jim Stewart, and Sandy Jardine (club 'ambassador' and complete arsepiece) are all still on the payroll. Why?

[pansypotterthedirtyrotter]

Sorry, I know how the CVA works - I was referring to the sale of the assets to the newco.

the administrators remit is to get the best possible return for creditors, selling the assets for a pittance to some tow truck guy isn't doing that. these assets would be worth more on the open market.

[Drooper]

That's certainly open to debate.

But they have 2 major responsibilities in an insolvency.

1 to try to keep the business trading as a going concern.

2 to try to get a return for the creditors.

It's a fine line and one I don't think D&P have trod well at all.

Christ, for weeks we've been banging on about this on here. Surely those who stand to lose millions of pounds (not least of OUR money in the case of HMRC) are scrutinising the manner in which D&P have been going about their business.

ETA: as taxpayers, I suspect we would be very much within our rights to lobby our elected representatives with a view to ensuring that HMRC are doing everything they can and should in ensuring that any misappropriated money gets returned to the public purse. I think I might be writing to my MSP and MP over the weekend....

Edited May 4, 2012 by Drooper

[AndyM]

they haven't attempted to sell players yet, who would bring in decent ammounts. and selling greyskull, murray park and the car park would raise more than the £11m millers offering, so you could say dumb n dumber are in effect putting assets out of reach of the creditors. i wonder if ticketus or HMRC will say anything about this.

They won't sell players outwith the Transfer Window. To do so would be madness.

As for Ticketus they're chasing Collyer Bristow through the courts for 25m.

[Homer Thompson]

If assets were being sold as RFC1872 then yes they could. But Miller will move them all to RFC2012 which the creditors will have no claim over.

Worth posting this again.

"What is a hive down?

A hive down is a form of reorganisation of a company whereby a business or businesses are transferred to a subsidiary company. It is a common restructuring technique whereby the profitable parts of a business, or valuable assets of an existing company are transferred or hived down to a newly formed subsidiary of that company

It is the simplest possible form of company reconstruction. A company in formal insolvency proceedings will sell its business – for a monetary price or shares - to a wholly owned subsidiary which does not have the burden of the liabilities incurred by the original company. It is then possible for the new company to be transferred or sold to the creditors as part of a voluntary arrangement.

The old company will be left with its historical debt & the new company will have assets & a clean balance sheet.

As soon as the old company has completed its restructuring it will own all the shares in the new company. These will have been issued at a value which is representative of the shares which it transferred to the new subsidiary company.

The new company will be protected from the risks & liabilities of the original business following the hive down. This means that if the original company later goes into liquidation its creditors will have no claim on the assets of its new subsidiary. There is less risk of the valuation regarding the transfer of assets to the new company from the old being challenged in a hive down than with other options, & this is one of the main advantages of using this process.

The main disadvantage of a hive down is that as the old company will remain a shareholder of the new, if the old company went in to liquidation, the liquidator would control that shareholding & thus also the new company.

The process of hive down is therefore mainly used as an interim measure in order to protect the major assets of the original company prior to their transfer either to a third party or another company belonging to the parent company owner/s. In effect it allows the ultimate purchaser to acquire a 'clean' company which does not come with any bad history or unforeseen risks & liabilities.

This method of reorganisation may also be used to preserve the benefit of trading losses in the original company.

http://www.spw-busin.../hive-down.html

"

I feel like Im being pedantic, but what we're trying to get to the bottom of is if the creditors can do anything to stop the assets transferring from the oldco to the newco.

the administrators remit is to get the best possible return for creditors, selling the assets for a pittance to some tow truck guy isn't doing that. these assets would be worth more on the open market.

Isnt there first priority to maintain the business though? AndyM posted their responsibilities a few posts ago. In the MLM Solutions blog, they said that the responsibilities were hierarchical ie they dont move onto number 2 unless they know they cant achieve number 1.

[pansypotterthedirtyrotter]

They won't sell players outwith the Transfer Window. To do so would be madness.

As for Ticketus they're chasing Collyer Bristow through the courts for 25m.

not as mad as allowing them to walk for free when the newco is formed.

they've got as much chance of getting money from craig whyte as collyer bristow.

[Drooper]

As for Ticketus they're chasing Collyer Bristow through the courts for 25m.

This is an absolute nonsense, and yet another deflection technique. They haven't the faintest chance of succeeding in this action. If Ticketus were stupid enough to enter into the deal with Whyte via Withey, frankly that is their look-out. Collyer Bristow were simply acting on the instruction of their client (or so they will claim).

[AndyM]

not as mad as allowing them to walk for free when the newco is formed.

Who says they'll walk for free?

They will like every Scottish player in the league be available for transfer.

They'll also be part of RFC2012 rather than the debt ridden Oldco.

they've got as much chance of getting money from craig whyte as collyer bristow.

Ticketus's lawyers don't agree.

[Drooper]

Ticketus's lawyers don't agree.

Nah, they've launched a counter action in order to be seen to be doing the right thing by their own shareholders.

Ticketus certainly have a greater call on the money, but not from Collyer Bristow.

[AndyM]

This is an absolute nonsense, and yet another deflection technique. They haven't the faintest chance of succeeding in this action. If Ticketus were stupid enough to enter into the deal with Whyte via Withey, frankly that is their look-out. Collyer Bristow were simply acting on the instruction of their client (or so they will claim).

Perhaps.

Ticketus deserve all they get IMHO. Stupid company.