Discussion in 'The Bear Pit' started by Craig, Oct 7, 2017.
I'm more interested in following this trial than explaining anything further to you.
Hardly BBC nonsense.
It's Kings position
The tangent we went off on was to debate whether anyone would accept 2op a share, which is obviously pertinent to the court case.
I'm giving you reasonable reasons why I don't think anyone will as there are other avenues to possibly get a higher price. You're explaining nothing.
Maybe you're just not the best at multi tasking
Is DK's counsel deliberately irritating the judge? This defence sounds awfully weak.
Doubt it but if that's his defence his counsel has no option but to put it forward.
Had another quick scan of the updates, the judge looks to be seeing right through DK's viewpoints.
Would wager the judge will enforce the findings that King must now launch a takeover tbh.
Will go on and on.
The current argument presented for King does seem a bit crap. I don't think "don't order me to do something I'm supposed to be doing because I can't afford it" is going to get him very far.
I would have thought the better argument would have been King is the wrong person to be ordered, and it should be the trust - it at least makes a sort of sense - maybe his Counsel will get on to that later.
Council suggesting King didn't know the significance of the 30% rule. He's on to plums with that defence
He seems to have changed tack and is suggesting that DK doesn't understand the basics of shareholding
It was the "common sense" rule (rationale unheard of in litigation before) that the CoS and Supreme Court used against us in the EBT cases.
If there is a share issue, would the value of their now diluted shares be more than 20p?
DK's counsel is really dreadful. If the tweets represent him accurately.
Unfortunately you can only play with the hand your dealt.
Counsel says situation is stark. christ almighty. I'm not sure what that means but it appears to fly in the face of what DK said ie this case will have zero impact on him or Rangers.
Is that amount not to purchase every share he doesn't own?
So it's unlikely he'd actually spend anything like this.
I don't know mate.
He has stated in court he doesn't own any of our shares.
Alasdair LamontVerified account @BBCAlLamont 2h2 hours ago
Counsel says information in affidavit shows link between King, Glencoe, Sovereign and NOAL. King claims not to be shareholder in Rangers.
I have never been a fan of King due to the constant lies, this case is sadly reaffirming my viewpoint.
Wouldn't have thought this the same thing.
Buying Ashley's shares had a greater good.
Buying today at any amount means they'll have less money to purchase at share issue time.
Of course, I have no idea what the share issue price is likely to be.
Court over until tomorrow at ten.
I think it just means that the legal argument is "stark." This is in the sense there are only two possibilities : the court either has a discretion or the court doesn't. If the court doesn't then King's argument fails (on this point, anyway.)
It's an estimated value of shares the concert party don't own. He only needs to buy the shares from people who want to sell them at 20p. But he does need to have the full value of shares he's making offer for up front.
Is his council not there to advise him?
Yes but he can’t make things up!
They can advise him from the position he has put forward to them.
STV reporting must make £11m share offer
Totally misleading title. The article states he must however reading the article they have quoted the prosecuting QC in the title, typical click bait
But he'd have to put the full amount into Escrow before making the offer
From reading section 955 of the Companies Act, the court does have discretion in the action it takes to secure compliance, but there's a clear onus to secure compliance. I don't see any real wiggle room.
There's a may there, but it seems mandatory in terms of the rest of the clause.
If compliance is not possible then that's a matter of contempt.
My point is why would anyone accept an offer of 20p when the current share price is 27.5p.
Where are you getting 27.5 p from?
They wouldn't, unless they have a particularly large shareholding they'd want to get rid of quickly. The clubs shares are pretty illiquid.
The costs for King would be for getting £11 million to put escrow (financing costs which would eyewatering given his lack of assets*) and the offer costs (probably around £1 million)
*if we believe his assets are tied up in a trust structure which he doesn't control...no laughing at the back
King must have seen this coming down the road..he'll have a good idea what's coming next.
How can DK expect discretion on an argument that's basically I didn't follow market regulations, I didn't comply with the takeover panel ruling, I don't have the money to do these things!
I know counsel is putting effort into establishing DK and NOAL are separate. And TAB should have corresponded directly with NOAL. But it's really hard to see how this is going to convince lord Bannatyne.
I hadn't read that before now, but yes - that's how I would interpret that section too.
There's maybe just enough room for argument to allow King's counsel to try to interpret "may" more widely, but I can't think that the advice given to King can have been that there was much chance of success on this point.
I can't see that he can, to be honest. Before you even get to that the question is whether the Court even has any discretion in the first place though, and it's not looking very good even on that!
So much for investing(overinvesting) 30 million of his own cash and his kids inheritance
Quite a few on here actively against Dave King.
I find that strange.
Nice to see some new posters cropping up here
Why ? People are simply unhappy at the way he has conducted things with these shares, It's hard enough trying to understand the posters on here trying to explain things.
We really don't need anyone jumping in with the conspiracy theory's.
Yeah he's been terrible for us, jog on
Can someone give a worst case scenario from this? Bit out of my depth
You have absolutely no idea what your talking about, do you?
Sorry, bud, could you elaborate?
Kings played a blinder here. He will 've forced to make an offer for all shares and nobody will take it. Overall this is just a waste of time.
The rats are popping up from their holes today
Panel On Takeovers and Mergers believes the Ibrox boss has not complied with the law.
Dave King: Accused of action 'in concert' with three wealthy fans. SNS Group
A judge has been urged to force Rangers chairman Dave King to make an £11m offer for the remaining shares in the club.
Advocate James McNeill QC told Lord Bannatyne the Panel On Takeovers and Mergers believes the Ibrox chief has not complied with the law.
The lawyer told the judge how the 2006 Companies Act dictates that entrepreneurs who hold a 30% stake in businesses are compelled to make an offer to buy remaining shares.
He said financial investigators believe they have established Mr King acted "in concert" with three wealthy fans nicknamed the Three Bears.
Mr McNeill said Mr King teamed up with George Letham, George Taylor and Douglas Park to acquire more than 30% of voting rights in Rangers in late 2014.
He told the Court of Session how financial investigators concluded Mr King was in control of the shares and should be liable to make an offer for the remaining shares.
The court heard how Mr King told the investigators he did not act with the three other businessmen.
He told the financial investigators 14% of the shares were controlled by a company called New Oasis Asset Management Limited, registered in the British Virgin Islands.
Mr King allegedly told investigators these shares were purchased using money from his family trust.
The businessman said the company was independent from him.
The court heard financial investigators had obtained emails showing Mr Letham had been in touch with him over the share purchase.
The investigators also concluded Mr King controlled New Oasis Asset Management Limited shares and was therefore liable to follow company law and make an offer at 20p per share.
Urging Lord Bannatyne to pass an order, Mr McNeil said: "Mr King is in fact in control of the voting rights.
"The court should be satisfied that it can make an order seeking compliance under the legislation."
Mr McNeill was speaking on the first day of a two-day session at the Court of Session.
The panel, which regulates deals in the UK, said it started proceedings in Edinburgh after Mr King ignored an order to make an offer for the remaining shares.
This is despite the fact that the club is no longer listed.
Under UK rules, any group of shareholders that builds up a 30% stake in a public company has to make a cash offer to buy the rest of the shares at the highest price they have paid over the past 12 months.
The court also heard Rangers shares are currently worth around 27p and Mr King would be expected to make an offer at 20p.
The hearing, before Lord Bannatyne, continues.
And they are all experts regarding Shares amazing.
They are absolutely f*cking obsessed with the guy. Genuinely cannot fathom why.
Thankful for all Dave King & Co have done to save the club from the spivs but these kind of negative headlines don't help his "Dodgy Dave" persona portrayed in Scottish media.
The board on the whole seem stagnant.