Liverpool FC Forum

by **Igor Zidane** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:10 pm

Calm down people ffs.

bbc_matt Matt Slater
by philmcnulty
To make matters worse 4 Hicks, RBS, Broughton + NESV can combine in any cases going forward + Broughton can sue Hicks 4 defamation
14 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

bbc_matt Matt Slater
by philmcnulty
Complicated ruling but basically this is another defeat 4 Hicks. Any legal action must happen here #lfc
18 minutes ago

by **Igor Zidane** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:34 pm

The judgement in full.

http://redirectingat.com/?id=105....6%23new

by **Ciggy** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:20 pm

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/287.html

EPIC SWINDLE :laugh:

"Plaintiffs bring the suit to save them from an epic swindle at the hands of rogue corporate directors and their co—conspirators. Broughton, Ayre and Purslow (collectively, the "Director Defendants"), have conspired with RBS, NESV, Nash and other un-named co-conspirators to devise and execute a scheme to sell the iconic Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited ... to NESV - the owners of the Boston Red Sox - at a price they know to be hundreds of millions of dollars below true market value. In blatant disregard of their fiduciary duties, the Director Defendants and their co-conspirators have excluded [the former owners], who are also corporate directors and who are the ultimate owners of Liverpool FC, from meetings, discussions and communication regarding the potential sale to NESV. The Director Defendants, RBS and/or their co-conspirators have interfered with efforts by [the former owners] to obtain financing for Liverpool FC, have disregarded or downplayed offers that were actually or potentially superior to the offer made by NESV, and the Director Defendants have repeatedly violated their fiduciary duties of loyalty, care and candor by withholding material information from, and/or misrepresenting material information to, the Plaintiffs regarding negotiations to sell Liverpool FC."

by **lakes10** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:22 pm

they could always make a case for getting money off RBS, but to try and take us to court was going to be much harder.

RBS will win if it any court at the end of the day they moved to get their money back.

by **Ciggy** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:24 pm

Liars:

The Texas court was persuaded on the basis of these allegations to grant the TRO without notice to the defendants (although it declined what was in effect an anti-anti-suit injunction). It made it clear that the order was granted solely on the basis of what was alleged in the Petition. It is clear from the account of the proceedings in England given at [53] of the Petition that the Court was not told in that document that an application to restrain the sale had been made and refused in England. It now transpires that the Judge had asked why the application made in his court was not being made in England and was told by the attorney for the claimants that it had not been possible because "the courts were closed" and that the plaintiffs "couldn't reach the court for that relief". At a subsequent hearing the plaintiffs' attorney, on being questioned by the Judge answered, no doubt on the instructions of the former owners, that "under no circumstances have we ever sought the relief that was sought before this court. It has never been sought". It is tolerably plain that he had not been told by the former owners that the application had been made and refused.

I have also received no explanation whatsoever of how the Texan court came to be given the explanation which it was given of why the application had not been made in England, namely that the courts were closed. That suggests that Texan counsel must have asked that question himself, as one would expect, and that he was given an obviously incorrect answer, presumably by his clients. At the moment, the case that the former owners decided to withhold information from Texan counsel and from the Texan court, and indeed fed him with incorrect information, appears to be a strong one. The former owners have had a generous period to provide a proper explanation, and they have not done so.

by **steveh8204** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:12 pm

I haven't missed all this mumbo-jumbo legal talk I have to say. A reminder of some of the dark days we have seen this season.

by **metalhead** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:12 pm

Igor Zidane wrote:Calm down people ffs.

bbc_matt Matt Slater
by philmcnulty
To make matters worse 4 Hicks, RBS, Broughton + NESV can combine in any cases going forward + Broughton can sue Hicks 4 defamation
14 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

bbc_matt Matt Slater
by philmcnulty
Complicated ruling but basically this is another defeat 4 Hicks. Any legal action must happen here #lfc
18 minutes ago

i'm not worried, if Hicks pursue legal action now it will cost him and he will fail

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:25 pm

nothing to be worried about.

Mr Justice Floyd, in his ruling, said the sale of Liverpool came about because of Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett's indebtedness and explained why he did not discharge the anti-suit injunction which still bars the duo from starting any legal action in the United States.

''The reality of the situation is that the former owners have already started two sets of proceedings and openly asserted their intention to start more,'' he said. ''They will undoubtedly start more proceedings if allowed to do so. There is a real threat that those proceedings will be in the United States.

''I still find it difficult to imagine what possible real connection such a claim would have with any jurisdiction in the United States.

''The disputes concern an English asset, duties owed by English directors under English law to English companies, and corporate governance arrangements governed by English law.

''I think the time has come when they need to state their case or accept that they do not have one.''

by **eds** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:19 pm

I really hope we go in now and cut them at the knees, suing the absoulate s**t out of these f**kers.

How ironic would it be lads if they ended up paying for our new stadium or next season's new players?

by **Ciggy** » Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:15 am

maypaxvobiscum wrote:nothing to be worried about.

Mr Justice Floyd, in his ruling, said the sale of Liverpool came about because of Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett's indebtedness and explained why he did not discharge the anti-suit injunction which still bars the duo from starting any legal action in the United States.

''The reality of the situation is that the former owners have already started two sets of proceedings and openly asserted their intention to start more,'' he said. ''They will undoubtedly start more proceedings if allowed to do so. There is a real threat that those proceedings will be in the United States.

''I still find it difficult to imagine what possible real connection such a claim would have with any jurisdiction in the United States.

''The disputes concern an English asset, duties owed by English directors under English law to English companies, and corporate governance arrangements governed by English law.

''I think the time has come when they need to state their case or accept that they do not have one.''

As floyd said in the first trial, this as got nothing to do with Texas and he is saying it again feck off with yer Texan hillbilly lawsuit you tw@t even Judge Judy would fling him out.

by **killerp** » Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:32 am

Tom Hicks loses second Liverpool damages claim! according to the telegraph!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport....im.html

We don't need any legal disputes right now, Liverpool is busy rebuilding!

by **lakes10** » Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:11 pm

reading on another forum that Hicks is st to go bust in a few weeks if he dont come up with some money, he looks set to sell a few homes he has...............................what a shame lol

by **Penguins** » Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:20 pm

For what that f**cker did yo the club he should be kicked out and forced to live on the street feeding of garbage.

He deserves to "loose it all" as he seems totally oblivious to what he has done and aknowledges nothing of the damage his actions have caused. Swine of the highest order and desperate trying to use his buddies in Texas to get money..

by **crim cram** » Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:29 pm

Broughton files counter suit:

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/1802201....tt.html

by **Reg** » Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:38 am

He's a clever lad, Broughton. If he 'clears his name' he effectively sets a precedent for any subsequent T&T case that he acted improperly.

Liverpool FC Forum

Twit & tw@t are back in town

Who is online