Report this comment to a moderator

Collyer Bristow defiant in face-off with Rangers administrators

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?

2-May-2012

10:00 pm