An interesting document has popped up on Companies House today.
It is linked to here – RFC MISC
It is an extract order from the Court of Session dated 9th March.
Rangers Football Club PLC (in administration) has applied to have an administration order made over the company.
The application is to be heard further in court on 19th March at 10 am.
The application is being made by the company (Rangers). As the administrators are agents of the company, appointed by the company previously, they have applied on behalf of the Company for this order.
The effect of it being granted would be that they become administrators under an administration order, rather than by a notice of appointment. One effect of this would be that they could no longer be removed by the company. This is perhaps an indication that Duff & Phelps (D&P) saw potential conflict with the Company in the form of Mr Whyte.
Pending the order being granted, D&P are now appointed as interim “managers” of the company (although this does not mean they will be sitting in the dug-out at Rangers’ next match!)
I see that David Sellar QC was instructed to appear. He is one of the “big guns” of the corporate Bar in Scotland. The administrators were taking no chances when the case called before Lord Hodge.
Under Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1985 Paragraph 11 states:-
The court may make an administration order in relation to a company only if satisfied—
(a) that the company is or is likely to become unable to pay its debts, and
(b) that the administration order is reasonably likely to achieve the purpose of administration.
So as at the date of application, the position remains that the debts cannot or are likely not to be paid and the administrators still think the purposes of administration can be achieved.
These are (1) to rescue the business as a going concern; (2) if unable to do so, to obtain a better result for the creditors by administration than by liquidation; (3) to settle the secured creditors.
So, as of last week, D&P still think they can achieve one of the goals.
I think that there is a possibility (although I am not definite on this after a quick look) that the making of an administration order might re-start the clock for the administrators to make their proposals to creditors about achieving the goals of administration. In that case the 10th April deadline for doing so would move back to mid May!
A visit to the Court of Session on 19th March might be interesting to hear what the administrators have to say, through their QC, to the judge, rather than what the administrators themselves have been saying to the press!
Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville 
If they have now to be considered ‘interim managers’, have they committed any wrongdoing by using powers assumed as Administrators in the meantime?
Can anyone (such as Creditors) raise objections or block the re-appointment?
well well ! the plot thickens
im even more confused ?
Confused, but nothing about this whole cover up surprises me.
Paul, point 3 in the pdf document you link refers to Group as holder of a qualifying floating charge.
Given the worthlessness of that charge according to recent statements emanating from Clark and Whitehouse, do you think this reference in the court document undermines those statements (or vice-versa, for that matter)?
Well spotted! Someone has got Group’s name wrong though. No mention of FC in the title!
Strictly D+P need a court to overturn the FC, but this at least confirms it’s still with Group!
I thought the reverse Paul. I believe they are trying to dispense with the appointment (previously by Group) as they now believe the Floating Chargeholder is irrelevant. (or at least was not entitled to appoint)
Should HMRC petition the Court to appoint their own administrators?
Who threw the dogs dinner on the floor? Someone will have to clean up this mess.
stunney
March 13, 2012 at 2:48 pm
“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
When is a charge not a charge? When it’s a floating charge.
This becomes more like Alice in Wonderland with every passing day.
If the Administrators go back to court and appoint a barrister for this session, it will cost another 15 – 20k. Why do Administrators have to go to court to be appointed administrators, unless someone is challenging the appointment. I would suggest the contributors to the Fighting Fund find out where the bulk of their hard earned cash is going to end up !!!
HH
Could we see Whyte’s lawyer’s turn up and object to this new appointment? Or HMRC?
Or should we read more into the rumour from day one of administration that has so far played out – that a date of 16th March would be set for buyers to come forward and in the absence of that liquidation would be sought and a winding up order from the court sought? Will in fact D&P use the opportunity to seek a winding up order on the 19th?
Apologies if this is an ignorant question but, is there any chance the court could agree to the order but appoint different administrators?
How do this effect HMRC’s oversight mandate?
This is frustrating. There seems to be no end to the dodges and ruses which can be pursued in the courts so that people who run up multi-million pound liabilities can continue to pretend that they have no responsibilities for any of the damage which they have done.
I’m baffled. How hard can it really be to nail people who have traded while insolvent and withheld taxes and NI contributions? How long does it take?
Now it’s got to the stage where Administrators are petitioning a court to name them as Administrators, presumably so that they can exercise a slightly different set of powers for a bit longer at £600 per hour. Meanwhile colossal debts remain unpaid. Is this really how the Law protects the interests of ordinary people?