The core essence of Duff and Phelps protests at the SFA judicial panel punishment handed out this week, as they state, is that: “in our opinion do the panel fail to have properly apportioned culpability between the Club and Craig Whyte”.
Yesterday we found out the truth about how Duff and Phelps really think about apportioning culpability between a company and a director.
The Lawyer magazine yesterday reported:
“The administrators are suing Collyer Bristow and Whyte’s takeover vehicle the Rangers FC Group for at least £25m in damages. The firm is accused of conspiracy, breach of undertaking, negligence and breach of trust, with Withey – who acted as the club’s company secretary – complicit in the allegations.”
The Lawyer goes on to say that Mark Phillips, QC, acting on behalf of Duff and Phelps, “told the court that there was no evidence anyone else at Collyer Bristow was involved, but that as Withey had authority to act for the firm, it was liable for the losses flowing from his “conspiracy”.
Get this clear; in the opinion of Duff and Phelps QC, as Withey had authority to act for Collyer Bristow, Collyer Bristow was liable.
Craig Whyte acted on behalf of Rangers after 6 May last year just as the old board acted on behalf of the club before then. These people are using one argument to chase an enormous £25m but using the counter argument to subvert an SFA judicial panel.
The rules of the SFA are clear, Rangers are ‘liable’ for the actions of their directors, as anyone using this argument to pursue £25m should be well aware. These people are shameless.
Buy a hard copy of CQN Magazine, issue 7, by clicking on the button below. You can read online here.