The sale of Ibrox, the car park, Murray park and all the other assets from Duff & Phelps to the "consortium" were not legitimate and it will be the liquidators job to investigate the cosy arrangement between Sir David Murray, Duff & Phelps, Craig Whyte and Charles Green. Let us see if the liquidator thinks they are allowed to offload 10's of millions of debt by declaring itself a different company whilst at the same time claiming to be the same company using the same logo and name. The legal rules regarding administration and liquidation of companies clearly state this is not allowed, and if it is allowed, it will be open season for any other business to join the bandwagon and do the same.
Can anyone be allowed to run a business for 10 years without paying bills or taxes, then when your credit line is stopped, bring in your friends to "administer" the debts, sell off the assets on the cheap to your friends, create a smoke screen and pretend the new buyers are not your friends but are your enemies, then run the new business as if it’s still the same business that you’ve just had liquidated, minus the debts of course, and make free money by putting this new business on the "alternative" stock exchange, hoping you can find 20 million pounds from gullible people who can ill afford to lose their money. Somehow I can’t see the liquidator allowing this to happen, but if it is allowed, it will only show how corrupt the UK has become and will set a precedent for others to follow.
Rangers fans can’t seem to understand the law is the law no matter what team you support. An important aspect of the liquidation work is to investigate the company's affairs and recover any assets that are missing, or have been transferred at undervalue out of the company. These transactions can be reversed by the liquidator.
Consider that Duff & Phelps were appointed by Craig Whyte who then sold the Rangers FC assets 2 days after the CVA was refused by the creditors. The assets were not put out for bidding on the open market to ensure maximum returns for the creditors, all the business was conducted behind closed doors.
Consider Charles Green openly says the assets are worth around 80 million. Do you not think it will be the liquidator's duty to represent the creditors and investigate this asset sale? Were the assets sold undervalue? Charles Green has openly admitted they have!
Transferring assets at less than their value may constitute fraud. Duff & Phelps could face criminal charges. In addition, transfers of the company's assets shortly before the onset of insolvency may constitute a preference or undervalue transaction and be overturned by the court at the request of the creditors. Do you think the creditors will sit passively by when so many millions of pounds are at stake?
Not only will the asset sale be scrutinised and investigated, the law restricts the re-use of a company name of a company previously gone into liquidation (section 216 of the Insolvancy Act 1986). The name which can’t be used is known as the "prohibited name" A "prohibited name" is a name by which the liquidated company was known at any time in the 12 months prior to liquidation, whether this is its registered name at company house, it's trading name, or any name so similar to the liquidated company’s trading or registered name as to suggest an association with the liquidated company. It is therefore very clear the legal insolvency rules are being broken openly and brazenly by Charles Green and his "consortium". Whether they get away with this will remain to be seen.
Important warning to Charles Green and his consortium: Section 216 of the insolvency act states it is illegal to use the same name or associate any new business with a liquidated business. If you contravene section 216 of the act you are committing a criminal offence. You may be prosecuted by the Department of Business Innovation and Skills and you could go to prison if you are prosecuted. In addition, under section 217 of the act, you could be made personally liable for the debts incurred during the time that you were managing a business using a prohibited name, even if it was a limited company. This could happen whether you are prosecuted under section 216 or not.
Warning to Ally McCoist: Even if you are not contravening section 216 of the Act, you will be personally liable for the debts of a company if you are involved in managing a business and you act on instructions from someone you know is contravening section 216. Pleading ignorance is not a valid defence. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/pdfs/guidanceleafletspdf/reuseofcompanyname.pdf