Friday 18th May
Between 9.00am and 10.00am
P229/12 Note: P Clark &c re Rangers Football Club Plc
Biggart Baillie LLP
It might be interesting – and then again it might not!
John Clarke, who has taken on the mantle of Court of Session corespondent for these matters, was along at the last calling on 4th May. His notes, taken from RTC with thanks both to John and to RTC are as follows:-
“john clarke says:
04/05/2012 at 2:47 pm
20 0 Rate This
Just out of Court 6, chaps and chappesses. Nothing too exciting. Ticketus had a motion trying to argue that the way expenses of their actions etc were to be calculated should be one way and the Aministrators argued it should be another way (on a lower scale of fees) Lawyers among you will know what the difference between party/party and agent/client scales are.
Lord Hodge referred them to the interlocutors he had previously made, when Messrs Clancy and Sellar had agreed that the normal arrangements applying to Trusts would apply.
He continued the motion rather than explain what he himself had meant by the words he had used in the interlocutors.
But both parties were to a) ask the Auditor how he would interpret the interlocutor, and b) look at the practice followed in Trust cases.
The motion was continued to a date yet to be agreed, with the solicitor for D&P making sure that the expenses of preparing for today and the next hearing would be included.
As far as I could make out, all the expenses will fall to the Administrators’ ‘pot’ anyway. It’s just that one basis of calculation would result in a whole lot less of a bite out of the ‘pot’.
And that was that.
Quite interesting in its own way, and I’m puzzled as to why Lord Hodge didn’t simply explain what he had meant at the time.
At the continued hearing, if the parties aren’t agreed, the merits of the motion can be argued in full.”
So the hearing might simply be a follow on to that. Alternatively, it is possible that the court will be told, or will ask, about outstanding matters, like the creditors’ vote and the new “preferred bidder”. Indeed the administrators could ask for an order to shorten time periods for a CVA if they felt that this was essential to “rescue” the company.
The callings of the case in court have been the only way to find the “unspun” version of what is happening.