Tag Archives: Paul Murray

Rangers’ Statement Tonight Reads as if They Won at Court Today! And It Blames their Lawyers and the Judge!

If you read the statement released by Rangers to the Stock Exchange this evening, you might be mistaken for thinking that the Board won the case and the Rebels lost! Have a look at the statement below and especially the sections in bold.

The statement reads:-

Further to the announcement on 4 October 2013 regarding the petition filed in the Scottish Courts (the “Petition”) by Paul Murray, Malcolm Murray, Ian Cormack, John Graham and Colin Howell being shareholders representing 0.71 per cent of the voting rights of the Company (the “Petitioners”), the Company confirms that the Petition was called in the Scottish courts to be heard today, Monday 24 October, 2013 by Lord Tyre.

The Petitioners sought an interim order to require the Company to circulate notices received from the Petitioners pursuant to section 338 of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Notices”) to shareholders putting forward resolutions for the appointment of Malcolm Murray, Paul Murray, Scott Murdoch and Alex Wilson as directors of the Company.  The Petitioners also sought an interim order to require the Company not to hold its Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) until such time as the Notices have been circulated to shareholders.

The court has ruled that the AGM convened by the Company to be held on 24 October 2013 should not go ahead on this date in order for there to be sufficient time for the shareholder resolutions as proposed by the Petitioners in the form of the Notices to be circulated and considered by the shareholders of the Company.

The Petitioners’ submission and argument that the Company should simply have accepted the signed Notices at face value without any further enquiry was rejected by Lord Tyre.  Continue reading

Advertisements

150 Comments

Filed under Civil Law, Rangers

Rangers Confirm Who (Probably) Sold 2 Million Shares & EGM News

This morning saw two announcements from the Board of RIFC PLC to the Stock Exchange.

The first reads:-

Rangers announces that it was notified on 19 August 2013 that Imran Ahmad no longer has a notifiable interest in the Company’s issued share capital.

So Mr Ahmad has sold his shareholding (or at least a significant part of it). These shares were purchased by Laxey Partners – who are building a significant stake in the PLC. Continue reading

63 Comments

Filed under Companies Act 2006, Rangers

Revealed! Secret Plan Shows Why Rangers’ History Repeats Itself!

My excellent private investigators, Charley Farley and Piggy Malone, have found a secret document which is the blueprint for a unique brainwashing process. It plots the stages through which Rangers fans are being driven in relation to their team.

Farley and Malone, Private Investigators

Farley and Malone, Private Investigators

But it can be revealed that, rather than be the result of blind faith repeatedly betrayed, it is in fact a carefully orchestrated plan to force the faithful through every emotion possible conducted by broadcasts of subliminal messages.

I am sure it is coincidental that two shadowy figures, one known only as “the Law-well Man” and the other as “The Archbishop” were seen together in a building with a high spire from which the mind-bending messages are beamed. Continue reading

165 Comments

Filed under Alleged Humour, Charles Green, Rangers

The Blue Knights Return? Stockbridge/Mather/Smart in Firing Line

A busy day for Stock Exchange announcements from our favourite source of news!

After the return of Mr Green, there was still time for a further announcement. Continue reading

98 Comments

Filed under Rangers

Guess Who the Record Condemned as “Morally Bankrupt” with “Indefensible Greed” for Using “Sleight of Hand” to Avoid Taxes?

Whilst the First Tier Tribunal found, by a majority, in favour of MIH in the EBT case, the judges on all sides were of a mind that the scheme used was an artificial one for the purposes of reducing tax bills. The majority found that the form triumphed over the substance, whilst the dissenting judge favoured the reverse. These issues will be dealt with again, should HMRC decide to appeal.

As the majority commented:-

“The terms of the Appellants’ internal memos and communications anent the operation of the Remuneration Trust were highlighted by Mr Thomson. This had been a major feature emerging from HM Inspectors’ investigation. While these are suggestive of “aggressive” tax avoidance, we are conscious that they were composed by lay persons without specialist legal experience.”

And

“We are unable to make further Findings-in-Fact in support of there being an orchestrated scheme extending to the payment in effect of wages or salary absolutely and unreservedly to the employees involved”.

Dr Poon, in the minority said:-

“I disagree that the legal form of a transaction with its corollary legal effect is conclusive as a dictum in applying the Ramsay principle, and make extra Findings-in-Law regarding Ramsay and its application to the present case.

And

“I am guided by ‘the ultimate question’: ‘whether the relevant statutory provisions, construed purposively, were intended to apply to the transaction, viewed realistically’. To that end, the facts that inform me regarding the realistic nature of the transaction are more widely characterised than the legal form of the transaction.

And

“Secondly, in following the edicts for any trier of fact laid down in Heaton v Bell [1970] AC728 at 748B [Lord Morris], ‘The quest must be to find the realities of the arrangements that were agreed,’ and at 760E [Lord Upjohn], ‘having ascertained the real nature of the transaction, you cannot … disguise it by using camouflaged clothing’, I have highlighted areas of conflicting evidence and drawn my conclusions as to what I regard as the real nature of the transaction.”

It is fair to say that there was no attempt, as far as I am aware, by MIH to suggest that this was a scheme devised for anything other than tax purposes. Continue reading

73 Comments

Filed under Daily Record, HMRC v Rangers