One for OSB and any legal buffs. (1 Viewer)

SISU will always litigate

Methinks any subsequent actions could only be taken against the Administrator and/or the Football League. I cannot see any basis in law for the purchaser in good faith chosen by the Administrator being sued.
I believe the same would apply if SISU ended up as the purchaser, even though they appointed the Administrator, unless actions were taken between SISU and the Administrator they appointed that could be shown to have illegally favoured SISU.
The assumption is that the Administrator acts impartially unless proven otherwise.

SkyBlueSwiss said:

Methinks any subsequent actions could only be taken against the Administrator and/or the Football League. I cannot see any basis in law for the purchaser in good faith chosen by the Administrator being sued.
I believe the same would apply if SISU ended up as the purchaser, even though they appointed the Administrator, unless actions were taken between SISU and the Administrator they appointed that could be shown to have illegally favoured SISU.
The assumption is that the Administrator acts impartially unless proven otherwise.

Click to expand...

Yes there was a recent case in here where the administrator was successfully sued for shown biased against certain creditors.

Unfortunately such action would be too late for us.

SkyBlueSwiss said:

Methinks any subsequent actions could only be taken against the Administrator and/or the Football League. I cannot see any basis in law for the purchaser in good faith chosen by the Administrator being sued.
I believe the same would apply if SISU ended up as the purchaser, even though they appointed the Administrator, unless actions were taken between SISU and the Administrator they appointed that could be shown to have illegally favoured SISU.
The assumption is that the Administrator acts impartially unless proven otherwise.

Click to expand...

And is'nt he immune of any costs if involved in Litigation ,so in theory assuming he did what we consider the right thing ,the other party would have to throw a shed load at it and still probably walk away the loser.

Remember Gillette and Higgs took some form of legal action against whoever it was that oversaw the takeover of Liverpool. I'm not sure how it ended though and it didn't effect the new owners FSG.

The administrator has had 8 weeks to investigate. He has come up with more questions than answers. He doesn't know where the assets are, nor where the golden share is.

He now expects to take bids for the company based on this (lack of) information.

The only people that can realistically bid are Sisu (through Holdings), as they have access to the records. Their bid can be unconditional. Haskell and everyone else's would have to be conditional on the golden share being in CCFC Ltd.

Appleton can then accept a lower unconditional bid from sisu as it comes with no strings.

As Johnny Rotten said at the Pistols last gig, 'ever had the feeling you've been cheated'...

I think skybluesquirrel has summed it up pretty well BB

oldskyblue58 said:

I think skybluesquirrel has summed it up pretty well BB

Click to expand...

If sisu buy back Ltd, what happens to the lease with acl?

Could acl go after the rent for the next 50 years?

How it is, Fisher is breaking the law by trying to influence the administrator. SISU took CCFC into administration. IF they haven't then the 60million is still active and is still owed. IF we are in administration then SISU have no say on who the administrator see as the 'ideal' purchaser of the club.