Tag Archives: Unjustified Enrichment

Rangers + Ticketus – Part 3 – Loans, Sales, Financial Assistance and Unjustified Enrichment

On Friday Lord Hodge issued his decision in the application by D&P for “Directions” in connection with their handling of the Rangers administration.

Prior to going into the bulk of my post, can I suggest a visit here for another, but different, legal perspective on why a Rangers “fire sale” is the most likely outcome?

Back to the regularly scheduled programming –

From Lord Hodge’s judgment I have extracted the following section:-

[16] The administrators’ legal advisers have challenged the enforceability of the STA (Season Ticket Agreement). It envisaged that Rangers would use the payment for the first tranche STA tickets to effect the repayment of its debt of about £18 million to Bank of Scotland plc. It was also proposed that Rangers would lend £16 million to Wavetower Limited (now called The Rangers FC Group Limited) to enable that debt to be repaid and that the bank’s debt and its securities would be assigned to Wavetower Limited (Schedule 19). The administrators’ legal advisers have asserted that the STA is illegal on the ground that it was an agreement for the giving indirectly by Rangers of financial assistance for the acquisition of its shares contrary to section 678 of the Companies Act 2006. The existence of this challenge is not however relevant to the directions which I have to give as I must assume at this stage that the Ticketus agreements are valid.

As I mentioned in my last post, this discloses (a) that Rangers lent, or it was proposed that it should lend, Group £16 million and (b) Duff & Phelps are trying to strike the Ticketus deal down on “financial assistance” grounds.

 

What Chance Do the Administrators Have of Striking Down the Ticketus Deal as Illegal “Financial Assistance”?

Slim.

OK – I’ll explain. My “workings” are shown below but, put simply, it looks as if, even if the loan from Rangers to Group was “financial assistance” the sale to Ticketus is a normal and legitimate business transaction. Whilst it might be argues that the sale is “tainted” by illegality in the loan deal, the two transactions can be separated.

However, even if the Ticketus “sale” is struck down, Ticketus would have a claim against Rangers for return of the money on the grounds of “unjustified enrichment”. Ticketus will either have a valid contract or will be creditors. They will not, to coin a phrase, be walking away!

Continue reading

Advertisements

13 Comments

Filed under Administration, Football, Rangers, Ticketus