Collyer Bristow defiant in face-off with Rangers administrators By The Lawyer 30 April 2012 00:00 17 December 2015 13:13 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer lewis kennedy 2 May 2012 at 22:00 So what exactly are Collyer Bristow’s substantive arguments against the administrators’ claims? Can they not tell us how they are going to ‘vigorously defend’ this action? Is this a secret? Withey was their partner. They are all responsible for what he did? Withey is heavily implicated – because he should never have gone into business with a client who has very recently been a disqualified director. It was his business to know that about his client. Is it acceptable practice in England for solicitors to go into business with clients who are disqualified directors? It should have been palpably obvious to Withey that he had a conflict between his duties to his client (Craig Whyte), and his duties to Rangers, in his new non-solicitor role as Company Secretary of Rangers. The conflict arose by virtue of his appointment as Company Secretary of Rangers – an appointment in which all partners of Collyer Bristow are complicit. The legal interests were antagonistic from the start – indeed, as soon as Craig Whyte failed to declare his status as a disqualified director to the relevant Scottish football regulatory authorities – and by his involvement in presumably advising and taking pre-acquisition instructions regarding ‘back-to-back’ financing. Certainly, as soon as Withey was aware that he was to be appointed as Company Secretary of Rangers – which does not appear to have been an unforeseen development. Further, to what extent have Withey and Collyer Bristow been complicit in keeping the assets of Rangers (Ticketus money) – which was apparently the product of fraud – in their client account? Or does money laundering compliance only apply to the little people? Reply Link Lesley Palmer 15 May 2012 at 21:20 Mr Withey does seem to have been remarkably unlucky in his football connections. In 1998 he was Company Secretary at another football club – Crystal Palace. For those who may not remember Palace were bought by a local businessman Mark Goldberg who promised great things and lots of money and it all collapsed very shortly afterwards in a lot of recriminations and unpaid bills as well as some very dubious goings on. Palace slid into administration and Mr Goldberg and another director received bans from acting as directors (Mr Goldberg’s has still not run out). Due to the other Director contesting his ban we are lucky to have the whole sorry saga set out in the law reports http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2003/2843.html I was particularly interested to note the Judge’s comments regarding a minute drawn up by Mr Withey relating to an amended contract which seems to have been accepted by him as not having been done correctly. Really one would think after such an encounter that Mr Withey would have been particulrly careful not to have got drawn into anything that could be misconstrued in the future – it seems he did not learn. Reply Link Craig 4 September 2012 at 22:31 Withey, a partner in Collyer Bristow – Whyte’s London solicitors – quit his Rangers role in March, claiming his involvement with Whyte had brought the law firm into disrepute. He also quit Collyer Bristow. Don’t see anything about death threats getting reported ,18 million paid to lloyds 4 million to collyer Bristow where is the other 5 million ???? Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.