0
    0

    Comment on Bad Money? by John Clark.

    Another wasted journey (in so far as any wee trip to the High St can be said to be wasted) to Parliament Square: whatever the motion was, it was withdrawn without a hearing. And it must have been withdrawn yesterday or first thing this morning so that the legal chaps were saved a journey, because none of them was there.

    Is it contempt of court to be contemptuous of their administration procedures?broken heart

    John Clark Also Commented

    Bad Money?
    Allyjambo 21st July 2019 at 09:59

    '…that no action can be taken against a dead club..'

    ++++++++++++++

    Oh, I don't know about that, Aj.

    The history books could/should show that Rangers FC of 1872 died an utterly dishonourable death, not occasioned by the run-of-the-mill  business failure that even perfectly honest businesses can suffer but a death caused by its serial cheating both of the Football Authorities and of HMRC over  a number of years.

    Post-mortem expulsion from Scottish Football is entirely possible and appropriate.

    And of course the absurd pretence that TRFC Ltd is the same club as that monstrous cheat of a club should be forthwith abandoned, and Scottish Football put back on the path of Sporting truth.

     


    Bad Money?
    Allyjambo 21st July 2019 at 09:59

    '..Of course, anyone involved at Rangers at the time the (potential) fraud took place might feel the effects of any fallout, maybe even a criminal investigation.'

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Have you had a wee read at this link, Aj 

    www.bestcriminaldefencebarrister.co.uk/criminal-defence-barrister-blog/2015/october/06/personal-liability-of-directors-for-criminal-offences.aspx

    from which I take this excerpt:

    "..It is generally the case that examples of personal criminal liability for directors flow from the corporate criminal liability of the company of which they are a director. Having establishing the corporate criminal liability, the personal liability of the director depends upon their role in the company and the link to the criminal act(s).

    Although the personal liability of a director is dependent upon the company having committed a criminal act it can be established even if the company has not been or is not being prosecuted.[my underlining]

    The existence of personal criminal liability of directors is intended to ensure the accountability of those in senior positions at companies engaging in criminal conduct…"

    There are some delicious sections in the Fraud Act 2006, e.g.

    "12. Liability of company officers for offences by company

    (1)Subsection (2) applies if an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate.

    (2)If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of—

    (a)a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or

    (b)a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

    he (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."

    And, of course, the directors of a company in Liquidation are still accountable for their acts as directors of that company notwithstanding the Liquidation or the fact that they had resigned before the Liquidation

    And, further, I suspect that if a  wayward director had been acting in collusion with wayward directors of another company the directors of that other company could find themselves also being prosecuted.

    Speaking entirely in the abstract, it is entirely right and proper that allegations of potentially fraudulent behaviour by company directors should be thoroughly ad independently investigated, for their sake if the allegations are shown to be unfounded, and for the sake of the rest of us if there is found to be truth in the allegations.


    Bad Money?
    Auldheid 20th July 2019 at 12:58

    '…and Celtic really should pass Res12 or a derivative at the next AGM.'

    +++++++++++

    It's late of a Saturday night, Auldheid, but a wee alarm bell is ringing. 

    The Res12 people would have to be careful NOT to withdraw the Res 12 motion that has been in 'adjournment' (for 6 feckin years!)  before they are certain that a replacement, differently worded, resolution will definitely appear on the agenda at this Autumn's agm and be debated and voted upon. 

    There is nothing the Celtic Board would like better than to have Res 12 withdrawn! 

    And they are no angels in this matter: if Res 12 is withdrawn,  they would try everything to prevent a new Resolution getting on to the agenda.

    After 6 years, it is clear that they, no more than the SFA, want the licence issue really and thoroughly investigated.

    Phew! Jings, crivvens and michty me! Forgive my moment of panic. I'm sure the Res12 folk are more aware of these things than I!

     


    Recent Comments by John Clark

    Accountability via Transparency.
    Ex Ludo 24th June 2019 at 09:24

    '….I would not be surprised if FIFA get a bit jealous and also build a shiny new symbol of wealth '…

    +++++++++++

    Your post prompted me to have a look ( not that I'm anything other than almost completely financially ignorant!) at FIFA's Annual report for 2018 at this link

    https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/fifa-financial-report-2018.pdf?cloudid=xzshsoe2ayttyquuxhq0

    They could quite easily afford to blow a couple of hundred million quid on a vanity building project!

    ( I suppose, incidentally, that all the senior bods are covered by some form of directors' indemnity insurance?)

     


    Accountability via Transparency.
    StevieBC 23rd June 2019 at 15:35

    "…..He is limited to Bosmans and loanees to improve his squad, and deliver silverware. ..'

    +++++++++++++++

    I wonder does he know and appreciate how financially strapped TRFC Ltd is? Does he know even as much as we on SFM know about the finances, thanks to the efforts of several posters who know about balance sheets?

    Would any one of us apply for a job at Ibrox,  in the knowledge that TRFC  is living from hand to mouth, and faces having to meet some serious damages claims, which might well swallow up such UEFA money that they might receive this coming season?

     

     


    Accountability via Transparency.
    Corrupt official 22nd June 2019 at 20:20

    '..Dead clever these lawyers….'

    +++++++++

    Are we speaking of William McCormick QC, who appeared for  King and Murray ( and TRFC and Rangers Retail) before Mr Richard Millett QC(sitting as a Deputy Judge of the (English) High Court on 22 March 2017?

    Para 28 of the judgment after that hearing has this:

    "Even by this early point it ought to have been obvious to all Defendants that Mr King and Mr Murray's positions as directors of the Company were hopelessly conflicted. On the other hand, the positions of the SDI-appointed directors to the Company's board were more closely aligned with the interests of the Company. It may very well have been the case that the business of the Company relied upon relationships with other entities in the Sports Direct group which were disadvantageous to the Company. That is a point of which Mr King makes much in his evidence, and much was made by Mr McCormick QC in his submissions on behalf of the Defendants. However, even if that were so, it ought not to have disabled the Company's board from seeking to uphold the IPLA and thereby protect its sole asset and revenue stream. The relevant comparator was between an allegedly disadvantageous IPLA and no IPLA at all, and ergo no business at all for the Company. "

    It doesn't seem too clever to me to be defending two members of the Board of Rangers Retail Ltd who, as also being directors of TRFC Ltd, were  acting (via boycott-support and purported termination of the deal that TRFC Ltd has with Rangers Retail ) not in the interests of Rangers Retail [ as they had a fiduciary duty to do] but in the interests of TRFC Ltd. 

    If it ought to have been obvious to King and Murray that they were 'hopelessly conflicted" how much more obvious ought it to have been to 'one of Her Majesty's Counsel, learned in the law'? broken heart

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


    Accountability via Transparency.
    My post of 20.15 refers ( the Court proceedings)

    On re-reading I find I did not complete a sentence. It's at this point

    " Mr Duncan: Absolutely, my Lord. I must make the point that what the Pursuer says about Lord Mulholland [ ed: Lord Mulholland stepped down as Lord Advocate in 2016. He was, of course, in office at the time the action against Grier was taken]..

    the end of the sentence is " is outrageous!"

    And Mr Duncan spoke with some feeling when he said that. 


    Accountability via Transparency.
    My version of the business ( quite technical business) in Court today. As ever, it's what I heard clearly enough to more or less get down in the words used. Nothing false has been deliberately added, and I think it's a fairly accurate report. I think eJ has mentioned that there was certainly an element of asperity and there has clearly been no real meeting of minds between the two Qcs.

    It's possible that there is an underlying question relating to the admission by the Senior Investigating Officer of 'errors' : the question as to the nature of the error(s) and the source.

     

    Before Lord Bannatyne.

     

    David Grier v Chief Constable , Police Scotland.

     

    Court sat at 10.30 a.m. 21st June 2019, in Courtroom 6, Parliament House.

    __________________

     

    Mr Smith QC: Good morning, my Lord.

    I and Mr McLeod , my Junior, are acting on behalf of the Pursuer, and my Learned friend Mr Duncan and Miss Lloyd are acting for the Defender.

     

    You will know, my Lord, that much of this case has been litigated in the Sheriff Court and comes here for various reasons. I have provided you with a note..

     

    Lord Bannatyne: I have read your note…

     

    Mr Smith: The first question that arises, my Lord, is whether the case should be accepted by this Court?

    Lord B: I see no .. I think it's basically a commercial matter. Mr Duncan?

     

    Mr Duncan: Yes, I think it should be the Commercial Court.

    Lord B: Yes, we have seen cases like this often enough.

     

    Mr Smith: My Lord, I think that further procedure should be a matter of some agreement. What I would ask is that maybe in 6 or 7 weeks' time [?]for a period of adjustment. [ed: I think Mr Smith was looking for the Court to ask for something from Parties within a couple of weeks, and then another few weeks for adjustments before any hearing]

     

    The case has thus far been litigated by reference to a Scott schedule [ ed. In commercial cases this is “a table setting out certain information about the claim. It could take a lot of different forms, depending on the matter in dispute, and it could be short and simple or long and complicated.]

     

    It took to the end of February before we were advised of errors by the Senior Investigating Officer.

     

    Lord B: Having read the papers, that's where we are going. There's a suggestion that certain material issues could be debated, thus limiting the extent of any Proof. Should there be a debate on certain issues?

    It's important to make a decision, otherwise procedural hearing could go off in different issues. Can you say what is the status of the Scott schedule?What did the Sheriff do? I would abandon …

     

    Mr Smith : I understand, my Lord. The case as pled was essentially overtaken by the Scott schedule. For my part, I want to adjust the pleadings to make the averments include reference to the statement of admission. The purpose of the adjustment is to adduce the point in the status of the Scott schedule: I want to debate the defender's lack of defence.

     

    Lord B: We don't want to go off in all kinds of ways.

     

    Mr Duncan: My Lord, I believe there are two things to be done; First, we have to decide what are the issues, secondly, we have to decide how we are to deal with them. Your lordship has seen my note?

    Lord B: yes.

     

    Mr Duncan: [ ed: failed to hear what he briefly said]

     

    Lord B: Mr Smith, this case needs to be nailed down. Would it not be better if we took some more time? Should we agree to have a procedural hearing in about 3 to 4 weeks' time. And at that hearing decide whether to abandon the pleadings and work on the Scott schedule? {ed: apparently there are about one hundred and four pages of pleadings]

     

    Mr Smith: I don't quarrel with that. But I do want to adjust the pleadings, to delete stuff, and perhaps halve the proceedings.

     

    Lord B: I was intending to put it out for a day.

     

    Mr Duncan: I agree with that.

     

    Lord B: What would you think, Mr Smith?

     

    Mr Smith: I think the parties should liaise to seek agreement about the issues to be discussed.

     

    Lord B: yes. Parties should set out in a joint note, or two notes, what they think are the points they wish to argue. Then I could decide whether there is a need for debate.

    There are various side-issues, for example the status of expert witnesses, and various other issues that need to be looked at.

     

    Mr Smith: [ ed: didn't get his remarks]

     

    Lord B: I could fix a summary decree motion…if you say the matter can be dealt with by summary decree motion? Mr Duncan?

     

    Mr Duncan: Absolutely, my Lord. I must make the point that what the Pursuer says about Lord Mulholland [ ed: Lord Mulholland stepped down as Lord Advocate in 2016. He was, of course, in office at the time the action against Grier was taken]

     

    Lord B: Well, I don't think at this stage we want to go into all the various matters.

     

    Mr Smith:If we are to have a short procedural hearing in two weeks' time then there are documents in the possession of the police that ought to be handed over. I have been asking for them for some time.

    Lord Bannatyne: Mr Duncan?

     

    Mr Duncan: I'm not sure which documents my learned friend means. But I'll look into it.

     

    Mr Smith: With respect, my Lord, looking into it is not good enough. I would ask your Lordship to make an order .

     

    Lord B: Is there a letter your agents have listing the documents?

     

    Mr Smith: There has been correspondence and emails, my Lord. I do not have anything to hand.

     

    Lord B: Can you let me have the email in due course?

     

    Mr Smith: Yes, of course, my Lord.

     

    Lord B: The more I think about it, the more I think we need a procedural hearing.

    I need notes from Parties in order to get set on track.

    I will set a date.

    Preferably a joint paper, notes to be lodged at least 5 days before the date, and a note about what the pleadings are going to be, etc .

    [ Consults with Clerk with calendar]

    Friday 12th July.

     

    Mr Duncan: Can I ask that we have a later start, my Lord: I shall be in London that morning and need some time to travel back.

    Lord Bannatyne: Well, if we make it midday you won't have to catch the very first flight.

     

    Right, 12th July, midday.

     

    Thank you, gentlemen.”

     

    Court rose at about 11.30.