Rangers Football Club PLC (In Administration) will be back in the Court of Session on Wednesday 25th April before Lord Hodge.
The Scottish Courts website has the following entry for Wednesday. (Scroll about 2/3 of the way down the Scottish courts page to see it in situ.)
LORD HODGE – H. Fraser, Clerk
Wednesday 25th April
Between 10.00am and 11.00am
|1||P221/12 Pet: Rangers Football Club Plc for an Administration Order
|Biggart Baillie LLP||Burness LLP|
Biggart Baillie act for the administrators, Duff & Phelps, whilst Burness represent the various companies who together make up Ticketus.
The court rolls do not tell us whose application is before the court, but it is likely to be one by D&P. Burness are involved because the hearing relates to its client.
It might only, of course, be a hearing to decide who pays for last months court proceedings. In any event, it will not be another attempt by D&P to have Ticketus and its deal torn up with court approval, or if it is, then Wednesday’s calling will be for the purposes of scheduling a full hearing at a later date.
One hour is rather long, even for the Court of Session, to simply fix a new date.
When I first saw this on the court lists, I wondered if it could relate to the “virtual” creditors’ meeting which concluded yesterday.
Under the Insolvency Rules, when the initial creditors’ meeting has taken place, the administrators must, in terms of Rule 53, report its outcome to the court.
In addition, as shown below, if the creditors reject the administrators’ proposals, that has to go back before the court too.
Rule 55 states:-
“(1) This paragraph applies where an administrator reports to the court that—
(a) an initial creditors’ meeting has failed to approve the administrator’s proposals presented to it….
(2)The court may—
(a) provide that the appointment of an administrator shall cease to have effect from a specified time;
(b) adjourn the hearing conditionally or unconditionally;
(c) make an interim order;
(d) make an order on a petition for winding up suspended by virtue of paragraph 40(1) (b);
(e) make any other order (including an order making consequential provision) that the court thinks appropriate.”
As Wednesday’s hearing was fixed prior to the creditors’ meeting, and therefore D&P would not know what the judge would be considering, I do not think that the calling of the case next week is to do with the up to date position of the administration.
However, Lord Hodge is perfectly entitled to ask counsel for D&P what the position is.
It might well be worthwhile for any reporter wanting a scoop to pop down to the Court of Session on Wednesday morning for 10 am! Bearing in mind the calls by Bill Miller for transparency, I think it is fair to say that the one place where the Rangers situation has been presented to the public without being filtered through the lens of public relations and spin was in the court for the previous D&P v Ticketus hearing.
In dealing with the media, and attempting to “manage expectations” PR tools are essential, and there is nothing wrong with them being used. However, PR and spin don’t work in court.
Subject to whatever happens on Monday in connection with Mr Miller’s bid, I am sure Lord Hodge on Wednesday will be very interested in the process of the administration, and even if he does not look for that information, counsel for Ticketus might well do so.
Still to come on this channel – I analyse the legal innovations proposed by Mr Miller, and I take a close look at D&P’s resolutions, and what the court might order D&P to do, depending on the creditors’ vote.