His evidence was found to be “wholly unreliable”. The Sheriff was, in a polite way, scathing about Mr Whyte’s manner of giving evidence.
Following that, one would expect him to be reluctant to venture near a court again.
To be fair though he has managed to keep Rangers operating past various dates when many assumed, and some hoped, the shutters would come down. With every successful hurdle crossed, he comes closer to what might be a Becher’s Brook for him.
When Martin Bain’s case was set down for proof in July, few neutral observers would have thought it likely that there would be a Rangers to defend it.
However, July is getting closer.
This poses a dilemma for Mr Whyte and his legal advisers. Whilst Mr Whyte could settle the claim brought by Donald McIntyre despite public comment about the cheek of him pursuing the claim at all, different considerations apply regarding Mr Bain.
Many Rangers supporters blame him, along with Sir David Murray, for the financial mess inherited by Whyte.
Whyte’s refusal to surrender to Mr Bain brought him praise and support from much of the fan base. However, how would fans who still had confidence in him react if he settled with Mr Bain? For many that might prove to be the last straw.
I would imagine that Rangers’ lawyers would want Mr Whyte as far from court as possible, whilst Mr Whyte has rarely shown a desire to shirk a fight. I suspect counsel for Mr Bain would view Whyte in the box as a hunter views a defenceless fawn, or even a succulent lamb!
Bearing in mind previous speculation that Messrs Murray, McClelland and Johnston were lined up to support Bain, the case would be well worth watching!
However, even if Rangers do suffer an Insolvency Event, this does not guarantee that the case will be prevented from going ahead. After all, they are pursuing a substantial counterclaim. Therefore, depending on the legal advice to any liquidator, receiver or administrator, the company might still, in the end, go ahead with the action to recover the counterclaimed funds.
How effective would Mr Whyte be in a case where he had no incentive and where the only benefit would be for creditors?