Legal action

[Darran]

Yes of course. I’m not sure wtf is so difficult to understand.

How does that mean I've lost the plot? Point me to a trust publication which outlines who's subject to the legal proceedings&what the proposed outcome is.

Is it damages only? Is the aim to force the sale of shares?

I support legal action which results in the trust gathering more funds&for justice but i dont think im alone in saying that there are plenty of specifics that haven't been clarified. As seen by that thread. The OP usually seems quite clued up but there must be a reason for him having the perspective he has on the case.

Oh and regardless of what lies that nutjob Resloven keeps saying the Trust can afford to go to court.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

How does that mean I've lost the plot? Point me to a trust publication which outlines who's subject to the legal proceedings&what the proposed outcome is.

Is it damages only? Is the aim to force the sale of shares?

I support legal action which results in the trust gathering more funds&for justice but i dont think im alone in saying that there are plenty of specifics that haven't been clarified. As seen by that thread. The OP usually seems quite clued up but there must be a reason for him having the perspective he has on the case.

You don’t need a trust publication which outlines who’s subject to the legal proceedings it’s been mentioned often enough over the last few years.
The OP is not clued up about anything he’s making it up just to get hits.
He posted a thread about Borini a few weeks ago that was complete bollox too.

I’ll say it again,the legal proceedings are against Kaplan,Levien and all the sellers including Davies, Dineen,Jenkins,Katzen,Morgan,van Zweden.
I’m not sure what’s difficult to understand.

Well there we are then. My intrigue and inquisitive nature is not tantamount to 'losing the plot'.

Is the aim to force the Americans to buy the trust's shares?

 

[Vetchfielder]

You don’t need a trust publication which outlines who’s subject to the legal proceedings it’s been mentioned often enough over the last few years.
The OP is not clued up about anything he’s making it up just to get hits.
He posted a thread about Borini a few weeks ago that was complete bollox too.

I’ll say it again,the legal proceedings are against Kaplan,Levien and all the sellers including Davies, Dineen,Jenkins,Katzen,Morgan,van Zweden.
I’m not sure what’s difficult to understand.

Well there we are then. My intrigue and inquisitive nature is not tantamount to 'losing the plot'.

Is the aim to force the Americans to buy the trust's shares?

The way I remember the option papers and the discussions in the meetings with members was this :

It's not the specific aim of the Trust for their shares to be bought - it is up to the judge to decide on what remedy to apply if the Trust win the case. But the purchase of the Trust's shares was thought to be the likely remedy adopted by the judge, although he/she could decide on something different.

 

[3swan]

From the Trust site

https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2019/02/13/trust-response-to-press-article/


As members will be aware from several previous Trust statements (some still publicly available on the Trust website), the Trust first proposed mediation as long ago as 18th May 2018 in its Claim Letter sent to the Club’s American owners and Huw Jenkins and other selling shareholders. This was sent in order to comply with the High Court’s Practice Direction, which sets out what parties in dispute should do prior to issuing court proceedings. It lays down a maximum timeline of three months within which the defendant parties should provide a full written response to the claim. Whilst the owners eventually provided a belated response, nine months later the Trust was still waiting for one from the Huw Jenkins and others represented by IPS Law. Finally, last Friday Chris Farnell of IPS Law informed our legal representatives that he had been instructed not to provide a detailed response to the claim letter, demonstrating that his clients had no intention of complying with the Practice Direction – and opening themselves to costs sanctions from the court if or when proceedings have to be issued against them.

And


The Trust has extended the offer to the legal representatives of the majority owners to continue discussions between the two parties with a view to seeking a settlement, which we would then present to our members as an option during the consultation. We hope this offer is taken up. In the meantime, the Trust’s legal team will be considering our options regarding pursuing claims against IPS Law’s clients separately.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

Well there we are then. My intrigue and inquisitive nature is not tantamount to 'losing the plot'.

Is the aim to force the Americans to buy the trust's shares?

The way I remember the option papers and the discussions in the meetings with members was this :

It's not the specific aim of the Trust for their shares to be bought - it is up to the judge to decide on what remedy to apply if the Trust win the case. But the purchase of the Trust's shares was thought to be the likely remedy adopted by the judge, although he/she could decide on something different.

Ok thanks for that. This does beg the question though, if the judge finds in the trust's favour and does order the share purchase, how does this punish the sell outs for their role in the wrongdoing? It wouldn't. So would it be possible the trust be awarded damages from them on top of selling the shares with the proceeds of that coming from the Americans?

 

[Darran]

The way I remember the option papers and the discussions in the meetings with members was this :

It's not the specific aim of the Trust for their shares to be bought - it is up to the judge to decide on what remedy to apply if the Trust win the case. But the purchase of the Trust's shares was thought to be the likely remedy adopted by the judge, although he/she could decide on something different.

Ok thanks for that. This does beg the question though, if the judge finds in the trust's favour and does order the share purchase, how does this punish the sell outs for their role in the wrongdoing? It wouldn't. So would it be possible the trust be awarded damages from them on top of selling the shares with the proceeds of that coming from the Americans?

Because all guilty parties will have to chip in for the purchase of shares.

I’d love it if Swedehead has spent to much of his sellout money and wouldn’t be able to set foot in the UK. :lol:

You can also bet on a sob story off Dineen to one of the local journos,that’s nailed on.

 

[Darran]

I’ll say this here too.
It’s very worrying,at least it should be to everyone that Keith Haynes admits people can say what they want on fansnetwork as long as he’s getting hits.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

Ok thanks for that. This does beg the question though, if the judge finds in the trust's favour and does order the share purchase, how does this punish the sell outs for their role in the wrongdoing? It wouldn't. So would it be possible the trust be awarded damages from them on top of selling the shares with the proceeds of that coming from the Americans?

Because all guilty parties will have to chip in for the purchase of shares.

I’d love it if Swedehead has spent to much of his sellout money and wouldn’t be able to set foot in the UK. :lol:

You can also bet on a sob story off Dineen to one of the local journos,that’s nailed on.

So that would then presumably mean the sellouts ending up with more shares than they have now.

 

[Vetchfielder]

Agreed Dar although as long as people realise that this Resloven character is either a sellout or somebody very close to them , then that's what matters. I did read that stuff on there earlier and I would have posted something there myself but there was so much bollocks from Resloven (misleading rather than outright lies) that I didn't know where to start and it would literally have taken me a couple of hours to do it justice.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Yea point taken.

But what on the thread in question is specifically a lie?

I’m not sure I’d call any of it a lie so I withdraw that. Just some people claiming to know more than they do and not understanding the little bits they do know (which is basically what’s already in the public domain).

 

[Darran]

Because all guilty parties will have to chip in for the purchase of shares.

I’d love it if Swedehead has spent to much of his sellout money and wouldn’t be able to set foot in the UK. :lol:

You can also bet on a sob story off Dineen to one of the local journos,that’s nailed on.

So that would then presumably mean the sellouts ending up with more shares than they have now.

Yes.

 

[Darran]

I’ll say this here too.
It’s very worrying,at least it should be to everyone that Keith Haynes admits people can say what they want on fansnetwork as long as he’s getting hits.

Agreed Dar although as long as people realise that this Resloven character is either a sellout or somebody very close to them , then that's what matters. I did read that stuff on there earlier and I would have posted something there myself but there was so much bollocks from Resloven (misleading rather than outright lies) that I didn't know where to start and it would literally have taken me a couple of hours to do it justice.

I did mention it when I was a bit pissed on Saturday night and Keith basically admitted he didn’t give a fuck as long as it’s making money for his family.
Not much you can say to that really.

 

[Vetchfielder]

The way I remember the option papers and the discussions in the meetings with members was this :

It's not the specific aim of the Trust for their shares to be bought - it is up to the judge to decide on what remedy to apply if the Trust win the case. But the purchase of the Trust's shares was thought to be the likely remedy adopted by the judge, although he/she could decide on something different.

Ok thanks for that. This does beg the question though, if the judge finds in the trust's favour and does order the share purchase, how does this punish the sell outs for their role in the wrongdoing? It wouldn't. So would it be possible the trust be awarded damages from them on top of selling the shares with the proceeds of that coming from the Americans?

They will not get extra compensation on top of the share buy back, if that's what the judge decides as a remedy. The judge will just award the Trust what they have lost from unfair prejudice or breach of contract. The judge will not allow the Trust to , as it were, "make a profit" from the deal and the judge will not be concerned with "punishing" anybody, merely to compensate the Trust for what they could otherwise have realised if things had been done differently/properly.
Let's also not forget that it is alleged that Jenkins or sellers provided the Yanks with an indemnification that no shareholder agreement exists. If that indemnification exists and if the judge finds that there was a shareholders' agreement in existence, then the Yanks could get their losses back from the sellers, probably subject to another court case.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

Ok thanks for that. This does beg the question though, if the judge finds in the trust's favour and does order the share purchase, how does this punish the sell outs for their role in the wrongdoing? It wouldn't. So would it be possible the trust be awarded damages from them on top of selling the shares with the proceeds of that coming from the Americans?

They will not get extra compensation on top of the share buy back, if that's what the judge decides as a remedy. The judge will just award the Trust what they have lost from unfair prejudice or breach of contract. The judge will not allow the Trust to , as it were, "make a profit" from the deal and the judge will not be concerned with "punishing" anybody, merely to compensate the Trust for what they could otherwise have realised if things had been done differently/properly.
Let's also not forget that it is alleged that Jenkins or sellers provided the Yanks with an indemnification that no shareholder agreement exists. If that indemnification exists and if the judge finds that there was a shareholders' agreement in existence, then the Yanks could get their losses back from the sellers, probably subject to another court case.

Yes i thought that myself. As if the sellouts sold their shares to the Americans under false pretences.

 

[PSumbler]

This feels like we are going round in circles over a subject that is a few years old.

The Trust - the day after we were told of the interest of the Americans - wrote to all other shareholders at the time to say that we may be interested in selling and could we see the terms. I know this to be true as the letter had my name at the bottom of it.

We made attempts to be part of the sale but were blanked by the Americans at almost every opportunity - something Mr Levien admitted to. I know this to be true as he was sat next to me at the time and it is on a recording of the event. So for anyone to say that we always repeated we would never sell is wrong. For anyone to say we never attempted to be part of the sale is wrong.

As per the advice from our legal team post the sale we tried to work with the owners and reach a resolution. We agreed in the first season to postpone chats until the end of the season and opened them within two hours of the season ending. We got a deal - a far from ideal deal - but one we agreed to promote and recommend (for all the wrongs that people will say) to try and bring the matter to a close.

After the vote closed and the deal was approved there was a change in terms. The change was one that the Americans did not think had changed but it highlighted that it was a difference to the one that we recommended. And for that reason I thought it signalled a complete breakdown in relationship. This was not the view of the board and because of that I tendered my resignation as the Trust has to be led by someone who believes in the direction it is taking. At that point I did not so for the good of the organisation I stood down.

The second Chairman - Will - resigned based on abuse he got online. Nothing to do with Trust infighting. The Americans pulled out of the deal because relegation was coming again nothing to do with infighting. And because they pulled out the Trust pursued legal action again of which the first stage was mediation.

The mediation never happened because the two main representatives of the hedge fund - Levien and Kaplan - wanted to send representatives and it was a view of the Trust that no representative would have the authority to negotiate so therefore mediation would prove to be a waste of everyone's time. We were happy - no matter what has been said - to attend with the right people. Indeed, some of us had already booked necessary time off work to attend the mediation.

This is all information in the public domain.

As has been said the likely outcome of the Trust winning a court case is the purchase of the Trust shares but - as has also been said - other outcomes are possible and will depend on the judge as and when it comes to court.

There are people on the forums - always have been - who are fed information by those who will just want to tell a slightly different story (Remember Rob Davies saying that we had turned down £20m offer for the Trust shares) because it suits them to tell that story. All I suggest is that you remember a few things

1. No individual within the Trust will benefit from winning any legal action nor from any money made from the sale of the shares
2. It is only the Trust out of all current and previous shareholders who only have the interests of the football club at heart
3. All of this would have been avoided had the Trust been invited to the table at the very start of the discussion which you need to remember started several months before it became publicly available information.
4. Nobody ever resented the selling shareholders making their money from their hard work and "investment" but to do it at the expense of the supporters is - frankly - unforgivable.