Battle for Liverpool FC back at High Court
The future of Liverpool football club took a new turn today as a High Court judge gave its American owners until 4pm tomorrow to lift a restraining order preventing the club’s sale.
Mr Justice Floyd said the behaviour of Tom Hicks and George Gillett in securing the order in a Texan court late last night amounted to “unconscionable conduct”.
Yesterday he had ruled in London’s High Court that the English directors of the club could agree a £300m takeover by John W Henry’s New England Sport Group.
But co-owner Tom Hicks secured the temporary restraining order from a Dallas judge before the board could make a decision on the sale.
“The independent directors consider the restraining order to be unwarranted and damaging and will move as swiftly as possible to seek to have it removed.” Statement on Liverpool FC website
Mr Justice Floyd, who totally rejected attempts by Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett to block the deal, today granted new anti-suit injunctions to nullify the decisions of the Texan court. He gave them until 4pm tomorrow (Friday) to comply.
Both the Liverpool board and NESV hoped a deal could be reached last night, but the intervention in America meant court action was necessary today.
David Chilvers QC said that his clients, NESV, already regarded themselves as owners of Liverpool, but if the restraining order was not lifted by tomorrow, Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett would have prevented the sale going through before the debts owed to the Royal Bank of Scotland became due.
Richard Snowden QC, for RBS, said the resort to the Texas court amounted to an “outrageous abuse of process”.
Texas court case a 'grotesque parody of the truth'
With no lawyers present for Hicks ands Gillett it was for RBS and LFC lawyers to take the floor, writes Channel 4 News reporter Keme Nzerem. An hour of both highfalutin and humorous legal argument followed, peppered with the kind of language usually deployed by Hollywood screenwriters.
Hicks and Gillett's Texas court case was a "Grotesque parody of the truth... An intentional failure to provide full and frank disclosure... Frankly preposterous, unfair, and unjust" said Lord Grabiner QC for LFC.
He asked the court to provide the Texas judge with a new judgement detailing that Hicks and Gillett had approached them only because the hearing in London had failed them.
Mr Snowdon QC for RBS said Hicks and Gillett's Texas injunction was "the most outrageous abuse of process"... and "plainly inappropriate".
The claim for damages against Ayre and Purslow were "scurrilous allegations which even in American terms is florid language" and the stunning feature of the Texas injunction was no evidence was found, "the judge made his order solely on the basis of unfounded allegations".
Website statement
A statement posted on Liverpool’s official website read: “Following the successful conclusion of High Court proceedings today, the boards of directors of Kop Football and Kop Holdings met tonight and resolved to complete the sale of Liverpool FC to New England Sports Ventures.
“Regrettably, Thomas Hicks and George Gillett have tonight obtained a Temporary Restraining Order from a Texas District Court against the independent directors, Royal Bank of Scotland PLC and NESV to prevent the transaction being completed.
“The independent directors consider the restraining order to be unwarranted and damaging and will move as swiftly as possible to seek to have it removed.”
$1.6bn damages
The American law firm Fish & Richardson published on its website news of the restraining order, also claiming damages of $1.6bn being sought by Hicks and Gillett.
The lawsuit is against Liverpool creditors Royal Bank of Scotland, Chairman Martin Broughton, board member Ian Ayre, financial director Philip Nash and NESV. It claims Hicks and Gillett are the victims of an “epic swindle” and “grand conspiracy”.
They claim the agreement of £300m with NESV is a “scheme to sell LFC to NESV at a price they know to be hundreds of millions of dollars below true market value”.
The post also claimed that RBS would only sign a deal off if it did not provide financial benefits for the outgoing owners.
Two deals are already in the public domain, that of NESV and also Peter Lim’s rival deal worth £320m. But the lawsuit suggests another bidder made contact through a third party on 4 October offering up to £400m.
The legal notice also claims Mr Broughton twice refused to respond to another offer worth between £350m and £400m.
