Rangers takeover: Administrators in £30million legal fight

RANGERS’ administrators Duff & Phelps are scheduled to try to add the best part of £30million to Rangers’ coffers at a High Court fight later this year.

A High Court judge said yesterday that claims by Duff & Phelps would be heard in London in October. Lawyers representing the administrators wanted a date in July but could not persuade Mr Justice Arnold to agree. They told the judge that cost-cutting meant Rangers would complete this season but that there would be “difficulties” next term. But Mr Justice Arnold said there would be no ruling before the start of the new season in August, even if proceedings were “expedited” so a trial could be staged in July.

Duff & Phelps want to get their hands on £3.6million which was held in an account belonging to club owner Craig Whyte’s London-based solicitors, Collyer Bristow.

But a number of other organisations, including the tax authorities, have also staked a claim and a judge is being asked to rule on who should get what. Administrators also claim that Mr Whyte and a lawyer were part of an unlawful conspiracy and want around £25million damages for the club. Mr Justice Arnold said arguments on both claims could be heard at the High Court in October. Mark Phillips QC, for Duff & Phelps, outlined Rangers’ plight to the judge. “This club is in administration and it is in a lot of difficulty. There has been put in place cash savings which means it can complete this season. Next season we will have difficulties.” Mr Phillips told the judge in a statement: “The club’s future is now in jeopardy. The administrators are seeking a buyer but the negotiations are complex, difficult and fraught, and leading bidders have pulled out of the race in recent days. The administrators are struggling to keep the club in business. Money is tight and time is short.”

Justice Arnold said he understood the administrators’ position. “Clearly the administrators need to put the club on as stable a financial footing as possible,” said the judge. “As I see it, there is no critical difference between a judgment becoming available in, say, September 2012 and a judgment becoming available in, say, November 2012.”