Trial begins of ex-Rangers boss Whyte. Image source, PA. Craig Whyte is standing trial at the High Court in Glasgow. The trial before eight men and seven women continues. Related Topics. Published 19 May Published 18 May Published 17 May Published 16 May Published 15 May Published 11 May Mr Whyte bought a much-loved club, and promised fans that he would provide further cash to bring success.
However, he caused the club to use this money to fund the purchase of its own shares, reducing funds for investment. He also failed to consult other directors on important decisions meaning that his behaviour went unchallenged. Such blatant lack of regard for proper corporate behaviour and control does not have a place in modern society.
Directors have a clear, statutory duty to ensure that their companies are run properly, for the benefit of the creditors, shareholders and, in this case, fans who believed in him. In RFC, Mr Whyte failed to act in accordance with his duties as a director to promote the interests of the company and to avoid conflicts of interest including:.
RFC plc was placed into administration on 14 February and then subsequently wound up by the Court of Session in Edinburgh on 31 October A disqualification order has the effect that without specific permission from the court, a person cannot;. Disqualification undertakings are the administrative equivalent of disqualification orders but do not involve court proceedings. There have already been two potential windings up of Liberty Corporate, for failure to lodge accounts timeously.
The most recent sets of accounts for Liberty Corporate Ltd can be seen here Liberty Corporate to and here liberty-corporate-ltd to None of that is to say that the company could not have acquired the Bentley in the intervening period. Presumably something has happened over the period since the last accounts to lead to Rangers FC Group Ltd granting such a security, and at the very least for the company to purchase a Bentley! Companies House states A significant accounting transaction is one which the company should enter in its accounting records.
When the case calls again on 5 th September there will need to be statements in writing by both parties stating their position, and answering what the other has said. This will allow the Sheriff to decide what further procedure needs to be followed. It is likely that a hearing of evidence would be needed, which could involve Mr and Mrs Whyte giving evidence, together with Thomas Whyte.
The only ways a hearing will be avoided are 1 if Mr Whyte pays his estranged wife what he owes her 2 there is an agreement reached short of payment or 3 Mrs Whyte accepts that Liberty Corporate Ltd owns the car.
The business activities of Liberty Corporate Ltd would be very relevant to the true position regarding the car. It should also be noted that the Registration document only lists the registered keeper.
The keeper is not necessarily the owner. What a man mr whyte is ,if he comes to court maybe glasgows real bhoys in blue the police would want to up lift him for questioning about the tax money hes not paid while at ibrokes,a thought it would have been a dead cert her getting the bentley too sad ,lets hope the next date set sees here drive away in it while agent whyte gets lead away in handcuffs.
Bet ex Mrs Whyte is an avid reader of this colum…………….. If so, would Whyte himself be responsible for the mortgage, and would his wife have a claim to part of the proceeds of any sale of the property? Liberty Capital, Liberty Corporate. It might just be that wee Craigie is looking for liberty of any sort at any price soon. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account.
You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Thank you for reading my blog. If you comment, and I am very grateful if you do, please keep your language restrained and be respectful generally and to other commenters.
Comments posted here are the opinion of the commenter alone and should not be taken as being my opinion.
0コメント