Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[forever_blue]

Strange bunch the Klan,

HMRC loose , celebration

HMRC appeal, disgrace waste of tax payers money

HMRC loose, celebrations

HMRC appeal ,disgrace waste of tax payers money

HMRC win, pretend it never mattered anyway.

BDO appeal, celebrate ,great decision ,not a waste of Tax payers money.

You seem a wee tad upset the day king

[Dr Koop]

http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14040779.Rangers_oldco_liquidators_set_to_take__Big_Tax_Case__to_a_Supreme_Court_appeal/Bdo set to take it to Supreme Court

Who'll get the bill if this one is chucked in their faces and the mark of the devil in indelible?

[Homer Thompson]

Not quite.

"BDO to ask the Court of Session if it can appeal their decision , then ask the Supreme Court if it will listen, and only then take it to the Supreme Court - possibly"

would be more accurate.

Even then, BDO acting for Hector, may just be wanting this laid down in stone for the future.

Would BDO not be almost obligated to seek an appeal, given how big a chunk of the debt is made up by the BTC?

[mythstoliveby]

For what reasons would BDO appeal?

- is it to keep as much money as it has a hold of for Old Rangers?

- is it to keep as much money as it has a hold of for the Creditors of Old Rangers?

- is it to help or hinder HMRC?

- is it something else?

[strichener]

Would BDO not be almost obligated to seek an appeal, given how big a chunk of the debt is made up by the BTC?

Only if there was a reasonable change of success. It would be quite ironic if this does go to the Supreme Court as HMRC will be funding one side entirely and the majority of the other side.

[Joe schmo]

Its funny cos its true.

This post has created an irony vortex.

[Homer Thompson]

Only if there was a reasonable change of success. It would be quite ironic if this does go to the Supreme Court as HMRC will be funding one side entirely and the majority of the other side.

I would have thought they'd be obligated to even if there was a remote chance of success.

[mythstoliveby]

I would have thought they'd be obligated to even if there was a remote chance of success.

Why?

[Dindeleux]

What's the progress on Dave bringing back the traditional Rangers? It seems to have gone a bit quiet.

[Njord]

Would BDO not be almost obligated to seek an appeal, given how big a chunk of the debt is made up by the BTC?

Depends on who is funding BDO on this......

Remember, they were backed financially by an unknown third party to begin with on this particular matter, which became part backing.

Be funny if it's hector.

[Homer Thompson]

Why?

Because they are obliged to do whats best for the creditors of the oldco. Winning this case would see a huge liability gone and increase the money left for the other creditors.

Depends on who is funding BDO on this......

Remember, they were backed financially by an unknown third party to begin with on this particular matter, which became part backing.

Be funny if it's hector.

Fair enough, I didnt know that. I assumed they were using the creditors pot to fund it. Even so, spending £x thousand pounds to, possibly, remove a multi million pound liability doesnt seem unreasonable.

[shull]

49 and permanently snookered .

[Njord]

Because they are obliged to do whats best for the creditors of the oldco. Winning this case would see a huge liability gone and increase the money left for the other creditors.

Fair enough, I didnt know that. I assumed they were using the creditors pot to fund it. Even so, spending £x thousand pounds to, possibly, remove a multi million pound liability doesnt seem unreasonable.

From their report a year ago

.

To date, the cost to the Liquidation of participating in the EBT proceedings has been minimal,

with the costs being funded by a third party. Going forward, the third party has asked for the

Liquidation estate to make a contribution to the future costs of the process. Having liaised with

the Committee, we are now seeking to agree an apportionment of costs acceptable to both

parties.

Plus.....

John James puts up the SA contempt thing

Lots and lots about how he obstructed them taking his flash cars :lolface:

The King of Contempt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT

Case number: 5984/2013

Date: 22 February 2013

In the matter between:

CLOETE MURRAY N.O. Applicant

and

DAVID CUNNINGHAM KING Respondent

JUDGMENT

[1] In this urgent application the court is requested to declare the respondent to be in contempt of the preservation order granted by the Deputy Judge President, Mr Justice van der Merwe on 14 November 2012 under case number 6554/2012. Secondly the court is requested to direct the respondent to purge such contempt within 24 hours of service of the court order. Should the respondent fail to purge his contempt it is requested that the respondent be committed to prison, alternatively that a fine be imposed on him and the Sheriff of this court be directed to take all and any steps necessary to:

-remove the vehicles referred to in paragraphs 3.3 to 3.5 of the notice of motion;

-obtain access to the respondents home for the purpose of enabling the applicant to inspect the wine collection and the assets which were attached in terms of the order so that they can be valued; and

-search for and locate any books or document relating to the affairs of Talacar Holdings (Pty) Ltd (Talacaf) and Gaius Atticus (Pty) Lts (Gaius Atticus) in the possession or under the control of the respondent, including, in particular, all bank statements and formal company documents (including, but not limited to, minutes of meetings, shareholder registers and financial statements).

2.13 Within seven days of the granting of this order all motor vehicles belonging to Talacar must be handed to the curator bonis. Pending such delivery such motor vehicle may be used by the person presently entitled to use such vehicle, provided that before any such use the curator bonis be satisfied, by presenting to him of such proof as he may reasonably require that the vehicle is properly insured in favour of Talacar and that the vehicle will only be utilised in terms of the restrictions of such insurance policy. In case of no insurance existing the curator bonis may obtain such insurance, after which the said vehicle may be utilised as provided for above. In case of any dispute in this regard the ruling of the Mediator will be final.

2.14 The curator bonis will be entitled to take immediate control of the wine collection of Talacar and to take all steps required in his discretion to ensure that all wines are properly preserved. All reasonable steps to ensure

the above may be taken, including sealing of the access to the wine collection and putting guards in place, or the removal thereof to suitable other premises.

2.15 In addition to any other powers set out elsewhere herein the curator bonis will be entitled on 24 hours notice to the occupant in control to access any dwelling belonging to Talacar and Gauis Atticus occupied by anyone for the purpose of inspection of the premises and the making of an inventory of all movable items and fixtures and fittings. The curator may take photos and may make a video recording. The curator will be entitled to request any person to give him information as to insurance of the articles in his or her possession, if any, and to give information in respect of any claim of right to possess any article.

2.18 The curator may dispose of assets belonging to Talacar and assets belonging to Gauis Atticus by means of auction or out of hand sales

[9] According to Deeds office searches the applicant ascertained that Gaius Atticus and Talacar are co-owners of the property at 54 Beachy Head Drive, Plettenberg Bay. Talacar is the owner of erf 2258, Blanco, Fancourt Golf Estate, as well as the owner of erfs 22 and 23 situated at 34 Coronation Road, Sandhurst, Sandton. Talacar owns a Ferrari, registration number HPS274GP parked at Sandhurst; a VW cabriolet, registration number CL26465 parked at Fancourt; a Mercedes Benz S500, registration number JJY630GP parked at Fancourt; Mercedes Benz registration number LGD145GP and Mercedes Benz registration number CBG439GP- whereabouts unknown to the applicant.

[10] The applicant took possession and control of the Plettenberg Bay and Fancourt properties in terms of the order.

The respondents actions:

[11] A letter dated 15 November 2012 was handed to the respondent on 16 November 2012 referring him to the preservation order. The order was served on the respondent on 16 November 2012. On 16 November 2012 the respondent informed the applicant that Talacar did not own any wine. Thereafter the respondent advised that applicant that there was no wine stored on the premises at Sandhurst belonging to Talacar, which is a contradiction as to the first statement.

[12] On 16 November 2012 the applicant requested the respondent to make available all particulars of the bank accounts of the respondents in the preservation application. A further request in this regard was sent by e-mail on 11 January 2013 to which the respondent replied on 15 January 2013. The respondent disputed the applicants authority to request the said books and documents and to hand it over in this reply.

[13] On 16 November 2012 the respondent was advised, in writing, that the vehicles of Talacar could not be used until the applicant was satisfied that the vehicles were properly insured. The respondent confirmed that all the vehicles belonging to Talacar were at the premises of a panel beater without providing any details of the panel beater. On 19 November 2012 the applicant requested the respondent to hand over the Ferrari on 23 November 2012 at 10h00 and to provide proof of insurance. This arrangement was held over until 27 November 2012 should the applicant provide proof of insurance. Due to the lack of the requested information and pending arbitration by Mr Justice MM Joffe on the validity of the applicants appointment inter alia, the applicant arranged temporary insurance for the Ferrari.

[14] On 11 December 2012 Joffe J handed down an award refusing to suspend any part of the operation or execution of the preservation order and refusing to remove the applicant as curator bonis.

[15] Since 11 December 2012 the respondent has thus known that the original order was unaffected. Thereafter the respondent committed spoliation in respect of the Plettenberg Bay property on 27 December 2012, which resulted in an urgent application on 22 January 2013. This spoliation order was granted on 8 February 2013 by this court.

[16] This was as a result of the actions by the respondent, who had addressed an e-mail to all the estate agents in Plettenberg Bay wherein he asserted that the applicant had no right to request the agencies to market the properties.

[17] On 11 January 2013 the respondent was requested to make available the keys to the Volkswagen Cabriolet and the Mercedes Benz S5000 within 5 days. The respondent was informed that the Ferrari would be removed on 16 January 2013. On the same date the respondent was advised that the applicant would inspect the Sandhurst property and the wine collection on 16 January 2013 at 11 h00. The applicant blocked the Talacar bank account as he had not received a reconciliation from the respondent since 14 November 2012, as arranged. The respondent was informed on 11 January 2012 that an eviction application would be launched to evict the respondent from the Sandhurst property.

[19] He furthermore disputed the applicants authority to request books and documents, refused to hand over any of the vehicles and also refused to make the Sandhurst property or the wine collection available for inspection. On 16 January 2013 at 11h00, the respondent refused the applicant, the sheriff and the valuator access to the property.

Contempt of court:

[22] It is quite clear from all the respondents actions since the preservation order was granted on 14 November 2012 that the respondent has tried everything to avoid the order being executed. He has been obstructive in every respect and his actions has lead to a spoliation application against him and a finding by Joffe J confirming the perservation order on arbitration. These legal actions have not deterred the respondent at all from being totally obstructive. He has refused steadfastly to co-operate with the applicant in any manner. There is no dispute that the order had been served and explained to the respondent in numerous letters by the applicants attorneys. It is clear that the respondent is deliberately and wilfully obstructing the applicant to avoid the preservation order being executed.

The respondent steadfastly refuses to comply at all. There is no dispute or complaint as to the way in which the order is implemented, the respondent refuses pointblank to obey the order.

[33] The applicant undertakes not to seek an order in terms of prayer 3.5 of the notice of motion, should the respondent undertake to forthwith deliver the Ferrari to Mr Strydom of PWC according to the new order granted.

[35] I can come to no other conclusion but that contempt of court has been proved. The respondent did not advance any evidence to show that he was not wilful and mala fides. All the evidence show that the respondent is obstructing the court order wilfully and has no intention to comply with the order. Therefore I find the respondent in contempt of court.

[36] I therefore make the following order:

1. The matter is urgent;

2. The respondent is in contempt of the court order granted by His Lordship Mr Justice van der Menwe on 14 November 2012 in the above Honourable Court Case under case no. 65542/2012 (the order)

3. The respondent is ordered to purge his contempt of the order within 24 hours of service of this order by:

3.1 Delivering to the applicant, in his capacity as curator bonis, all books and records in his possession or under his control relating to the affairs of Talacar Holdings (Pty) Ltd (Talacar) and Gaius Atticus (Pty) Ltd (Gaius Atticus) including, in particular, all bank statements and formal company documents (including but not limited to minutes of meetings) in accordance with paragraphs 2.4 of the order;

3.2 Insofar as the respondent is not in possession or does not have control of the books and records referred to in paragraph 3.1 above, the respondent is required to inform the applicant in writing as to the whereabouts of such records in accordance with paragraph 2.4.2 of the order;

3.3 Handing the keys of the Volkswagen Golf Cabriole with registration number parked in the garage at 54 Beachy Head Drive, Plettenberg Bay (the Plettenberg Bay property) so that same can be removed by the Sheriff;

3.4 Handing over the keys to the Mercedes S500 vehicle with registration number JJY 630 GP currently parked at Erf 2258, Blanco, George situated in the Fancourt Golf Estate (the Fancourt property) so that same can be removed by the Sheriff;

3.5 Handing over the keys to the Ferrari with registration number HBS 274 GP currently parked in the garage at 34 Coronation Drive, Sandhurst (the Sandhurst property) and giving the sheriff and applicant access to the Sandhurst property so that the vehicle can be removed;

3.6 Permitting the applicant and a valuator to attend at the Sandhurst property for the purpose of inspecting and valuing the wine collection and the assets previously attached.

4. In the event of the respondent failing to purge his contempt in

terms of paragraph 3 above:-

4.1 The Sheriff of the above Honourable Court is directed to take all and any steps necessary to ensure the removal of the vehicles referred to in paragraphs 3.3 to 3.5 above;

4.2 The Sheriff is directed to take any steps necessary to obtain access to the Sandhurst Property to enable the applicant to inspect the wine collection and the assets attached and to have them valued;

4.3 The respondent is committed to prison for a period of 3 months imprisonment suspended for 3 years on condition that the respondent is not found in contempt of court during the period of suspension.

5. The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application on the scale as between attorney and own client, such costs to include the cost of two counsel.

6. The counter application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Judge Preorius

Case number: 5984/2013

Heard on: 13 February 2013

For the Applicant / Plaintiff: Adv Luderitz SC

Instructed by: Gildenhuys Malatji INC

For the Respondents: Adv Louw SC ,Adv Gioiua

Instructed by: Routledge Modise INC

Date of Judgment: 22 February 2013

_____________________________________________________

In the preceding paragraphs I have provided a summary of Mr Kings current contempt of court proceedings. Someone who follows my Twitter feed approached Darren Cooney of The Daily Record asking whether King was in contempt of court. Mr Cooney stated that my allegation was untrue. He effectively stated that I was a liar. As you can see from the preceding text, Mr Cooney is the liar. Not only is Mr Cooney lying, he is lying in an orchestrated manner to deflect attention from our career criminal chairman. I posit that Mr Cooney is taking his instructions from King Central, a.k.a. Level 5.

For those not au fait with Scots/Dutch law, a Curator Bonis is a legal representative appointed by a court to manage the finances and property of another person. When someone acts in bad faith, as was proven against Mr King, the term used is Mala Fides.

Mr King evidently went out of his way to avoid the repossession and subsequent sale of a Ferrari, three Mercededes Benz vehicles and a golf cabriolet. He concealed them from the curator bonis and claimed in court that all five vehicles were at a panel beater. Mr King is evidently being, yet again a glib and shameless liar.

Mr King wilfully engaged in spoliation, which is a legal term for plundering. Since the properties were preserved for sale, Mr King chose to defy the court order and strip the contents of his two properties, including his extensive wine cellar. When asked to disclose the inventory of his wine cellar which was an asset owned by Talacar, which owned Quoin Rock Winery, he claimed the wine was not owned by Talacar. Mr King openly defied the court order, registered the wine under a new company, Gaius Atticus, and transported it to his Johannesburg home. With Mr Kings customary stupidity and self-aggrandising desire for conspicuous consumption, he chose to show Jim White his extensive wine cellar in a puff piece for Sky Sports. Since broadcast, this wine cellar, the contents of which were misappropriated, has been removed by court order by the new owners of The Quoin Rock winery.

In point 16 you will note that Mr King wrote an e-mail to estate agents to arrest the marketing of his properties that were being sold to repay his tax debts. You will further note that Mr King cancelled the insurance on his five vehicles so that they could not be driven to auction. He also concealed the keys of the vehicles.

This individual is chairman of Rangers. He has been passed fit and proper by what passes for governance in Scottish Football. As you can see from the salient details of the judgement, Mr King is currently under licence on a sentence of three months imprisonment. I posit that he will do everything in his power to avoid appearing in court on December 9. He will attempt to postpone this hearing on his latest contempt of court proceedings until after the licence of his current sentence has expired.

This man will stand before us and ask us to trust him as he carves up Rangers, dilutes the holdings of others opposed to his regime, and strips vocal opponents of their voting rights. The amazing thing is that our lemming shareholders, who have learnt nothing from the Whyte and Green spoliation, will support him. If they do, they are giving a convicted criminal control of our assets. Will he will hide our trophies in what was his wine cellar should the assets revert to BDO?

[mythstoliveby]

Because they are obliged to do whats best for the creditors of the oldco. Winning this case would see a huge liability gone and increase the money left for the other creditors.

That's the bit I don't follow. Are the HMRC not the main creditor of Old Rangers?

And if that's the case then - presumming available money is distributed by percentages to creditors - wouldn't the appeal decision in favour of HMRC not just mean that the HMRC are now due a bigger percentage of the money available to creditors?

Or is it the case that maybe the BDO are trying to preserve existing percentages and therefore give more money back to the OTHER creditors of Old Rangers??

[Njord]

With Mr Kings customary stupidity and self-aggrandising desire for conspicuous consumption, he chose to show Jim White his extensive wine cellar in a puff piece for Sky Sports. Since broadcast, this wine cellar, the contents of which were misappropriated, has been removed by court order by the new owners of The Quoin Rock winery.

[Homer Thompson]

From their report a year ago

Plus.....

John James puts up the SA contempt thing

Lots and lots about how he obstructed them taking his flash cars :lolface:

The King of Contempt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT

Case number: 5984/2013

Date: 22 February 2013

In the matter between:

CLOETE MURRAY N.O. Applicant

and

DAVID CUNNINGHAM KING Respondent

JUDGMENT

[1] In this urgent application the court is requested to declare the respondent to be in contempt of the preservation order granted by the Deputy Judge President, Mr Justice van der Merwe on 14 November 2012 under case number 6554/2012. Secondly the court is requested to direct the respondent to purge such contempt within 24 hours of service of the court order. Should the respondent fail to purge his contempt it is requested that the respondent be committed to prison, alternatively that a fine be imposed on him and the Sheriff of this court be directed to take all and any steps necessary to:

-remove the vehicles referred to in paragraphs 3.3 to 3.5 of the notice of motion;

-obtain access to the respondents home for the purpose of enabling the applicant to inspect the wine collection and the assets which were attached in terms of the order so that they can be valued; and

-search for and locate any books or document relating to the affairs of Talacar Holdings (Pty) Ltd (Talacaf) and Gaius Atticus (Pty) Lts (Gaius Atticus) in the possession or under the control of the respondent, including, in particular, all bank statements and formal company documents (including, but not limited to, minutes of meetings, shareholder registers and financial statements).

2.13 Within seven days of the granting of this order all motor vehicles belonging to Talacar must be handed to the curator bonis. Pending such delivery such motor vehicle may be used by the person presently entitled to use such vehicle, provided that before any such use the curator bonis be satisfied, by presenting to him of such proof as he may reasonably require that the vehicle is properly insured in favour of Talacar and that the vehicle will only be utilised in terms of the restrictions of such insurance policy. In case of no insurance existing the curator bonis may obtain such insurance, after which the said vehicle may be utilised as provided for above. In case of any dispute in this regard the ruling of the Mediator will be final.

2.14 The curator bonis will be entitled to take immediate control of the wine collection of Talacar and to take all steps required in his discretion to ensure that all wines are properly preserved. All reasonable steps to ensure

the above may be taken, including sealing of the access to the wine collection and putting guards in place, or the removal thereof to suitable other premises.

2.15 In addition to any other powers set out elsewhere herein the curator bonis will be entitled on 24 hours notice to the occupant in control to access any dwelling belonging to Talacar and Gauis Atticus occupied by anyone for the purpose of inspection of the premises and the making of an inventory of all movable items and fixtures and fittings. The curator may take photos and may make a video recording. The curator will be entitled to request any person to give him information as to insurance of the articles in his or her possession, if any, and to give information in respect of any claim of right to possess any article.

2.18 The curator may dispose of assets belonging to Talacar and assets belonging to Gauis Atticus by means of auction or out of hand sales

[9] According to Deeds office searches the applicant ascertained that Gaius Atticus and Talacar are co-owners of the property at 54 Beachy Head Drive, Plettenberg Bay. Talacar is the owner of erf 2258, Blanco, Fancourt Golf Estate, as well as the owner of erfs 22 and 23 situated at 34 Coronation Road, Sandhurst, Sandton. Talacar owns a Ferrari, registration number HPS274GP parked at Sandhurst; a VW cabriolet, registration number CL26465 parked at Fancourt; a Mercedes Benz S500, registration number JJY630GP parked at Fancourt; Mercedes Benz registration number LGD145GP and Mercedes Benz registration number CBG439GP- whereabouts unknown to the applicant.

[10] The applicant took possession and control of the Plettenberg Bay and Fancourt properties in terms of the order.

The respondents actions:

[11] A letter dated 15 November 2012 was handed to the respondent on 16 November 2012 referring him to the preservation order. The order was served on the respondent on 16 November 2012. On 16 November 2012 the respondent informed the applicant that Talacar did not own any wine. Thereafter the respondent advised that applicant that there was no wine stored on the premises at Sandhurst belonging to Talacar, which is a contradiction as to the first statement.

[12] On 16 November 2012 the applicant requested the respondent to make available all particulars of the bank accounts of the respondents in the preservation application. A further request in this regard was sent by e-mail on 11 January 2013 to which the respondent replied on 15 January 2013. The respondent disputed the applicants authority to request the said books and documents and to hand it over in this reply.

[13] On 16 November 2012 the respondent was advised, in writing, that the vehicles of Talacar could not be used until the applicant was satisfied that the vehicles were properly insured. The respondent confirmed that all the vehicles belonging to Talacar were at the premises of a panel beater without providing any details of the panel beater. On 19 November 2012 the applicant requested the respondent to hand over the Ferrari on 23 November 2012 at 10h00 and to provide proof of insurance. This arrangement was held over until 27 November 2012 should the applicant provide proof of insurance. Due to the lack of the requested information and pending arbitration by Mr Justice MM Joffe on the validity of the applicants appointment inter alia, the applicant arranged temporary insurance for the Ferrari.

[14] On 11 December 2012 Joffe J handed down an award refusing to suspend any part of the operation or execution of the preservation order and refusing to remove the applicant as curator bonis.

[15] Since 11 December 2012 the respondent has thus known that the original order was unaffected. Thereafter the respondent committed spoliation in respect of the Plettenberg Bay property on 27 December 2012, which resulted in an urgent application on 22 January 2013. This spoliation order was granted on 8 February 2013 by this court.

[16] This was as a result of the actions by the respondent, who had addressed an e-mail to all the estate agents in Plettenberg Bay wherein he asserted that the applicant had no right to request the agencies to market the properties.

[17] On 11 January 2013 the respondent was requested to make available the keys to the Volkswagen Cabriolet and the Mercedes Benz S5000 within 5 days. The respondent was informed that the Ferrari would be removed on 16 January 2013. On the same date the respondent was advised that the applicant would inspect the Sandhurst property and the wine collection on 16 January 2013 at 11 h00. The applicant blocked the Talacar bank account as he had not received a reconciliation from the respondent since 14 November 2012, as arranged. The respondent was informed on 11 January 2012 that an eviction application would be launched to evict the respondent from the Sandhurst property.

[19] He furthermore disputed the applicants authority to request books and documents, refused to hand over any of the vehicles and also refused to make the Sandhurst property or the wine collection available for inspection. On 16 January 2013 at 11h00, the respondent refused the applicant, the sheriff and the valuator access to the property.

Contempt of court:

[22] It is quite clear from all the respondents actions since the preservation order was granted on 14 November 2012 that the respondent has tried everything to avoid the order being executed. He has been obstructive in every respect and his actions has lead to a spoliation application against him and a finding by Joffe J confirming the perservation order on arbitration. These legal actions have not deterred the respondent at all from being totally obstructive. He has refused steadfastly to co-operate with the applicant in any manner. There is no dispute that the order had been served and explained to the respondent in numerous letters by the applicants attorneys. It is clear that the respondent is deliberately and wilfully obstructing the applicant to avoid the preservation order being executed.

The respondent steadfastly refuses to comply at all. There is no dispute or complaint as to the way in which the order is implemented, the respondent refuses pointblank to obey the order.

[33] The applicant undertakes not to seek an order in terms of prayer 3.5 of the notice of motion, should the respondent undertake to forthwith deliver the Ferrari to Mr Strydom of PWC according to the new order granted.

[35] I can come to no other conclusion but that contempt of court has been proved. The respondent did not advance any evidence to show that he was not wilful and mala fides. All the evidence show that the respondent is obstructing the court order wilfully and has no intention to comply with the order. Therefore I find the respondent in contempt of court.

[36] I therefore make the following order:

1. The matter is urgent;

2. The respondent is in contempt of the court order granted by His Lordship Mr Justice van der Menwe on 14 November 2012 in the above Honourable Court Case under case no. 65542/2012 (the order)

3. The respondent is ordered to purge his contempt of the order within 24 hours of service of this order by:

3.1 Delivering to the applicant, in his capacity as curator bonis, all books and records in his possession or under his control relating to the affairs of Talacar Holdings (Pty) Ltd (Talacar) and Gaius Atticus (Pty) Ltd (Gaius Atticus) including, in particular, all bank statements and formal company documents (including but not limited to minutes of meetings) in accordance with paragraphs 2.4 of the order;

3.2 Insofar as the respondent is not in possession or does not have control of the books and records referred to in paragraph 3.1 above, the respondent is required to inform the applicant in writing as to the whereabouts of such records in accordance with paragraph 2.4.2 of the order;

3.3 Handing the keys of the Volkswagen Golf Cabriole with registration number parked in the garage at 54 Beachy Head Drive, Plettenberg Bay (the Plettenberg Bay property) so that same can be removed by the Sheriff;

3.4 Handing over the keys to the Mercedes S500 vehicle with registration number JJY 630 GP currently parked at Erf 2258, Blanco, George situated in the Fancourt Golf Estate (the Fancourt property) so that same can be removed by the Sheriff;

3.5 Handing over the keys to the Ferrari with registration number HBS 274 GP currently parked in the garage at 34 Coronation Drive, Sandhurst (the Sandhurst property) and giving the sheriff and applicant access to the Sandhurst property so that the vehicle can be removed;

3.6 Permitting the applicant and a valuator to attend at the Sandhurst property for the purpose of inspecting and valuing the wine collection and the assets previously attached.

4. In the event of the respondent failing to purge his contempt in

terms of paragraph 3 above:-

4.1 The Sheriff of the above Honourable Court is directed to take all and any steps necessary to ensure the removal of the vehicles referred to in paragraphs 3.3 to 3.5 above;

4.2 The Sheriff is directed to take any steps necessary to obtain access to the Sandhurst Property to enable the applicant to inspect the wine collection and the assets attached and to have them valued;

4.3 The respondent is committed to prison for a period of 3 months imprisonment suspended for 3 years on condition that the respondent is not found in contempt of court during the period of suspension.

5. The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application on the scale as between attorney and own client, such costs to include the cost of two counsel.

6. The counter application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Judge Preorius

Case number: 5984/2013

Heard on: 13 February 2013

For the Applicant / Plaintiff: Adv Luderitz SC

Instructed by: Gildenhuys Malatji INC

For the Respondents: Adv Louw SC ,Adv Gioiua

Instructed by: Routledge Modise INC

Date of Judgment: 22 February 2013

_____________________________________________________

In the preceding paragraphs I have provided a summary of Mr Kings current contempt of court proceedings. Someone who follows my Twitter feed approached Darren Cooney of The Daily Record asking whether King was in contempt of court. Mr Cooney stated that my allegation was untrue. He effectively stated that I was a liar. As you can see from the preceding text, Mr Cooney is the liar. Not only is Mr Cooney lying, he is lying in an orchestrated manner to deflect attention from our career criminal chairman. I posit that Mr Cooney is taking his instructions from King Central, a.k.a. Level 5.

For those not au fait with Scots/Dutch law, a Curator Bonis is a legal representative appointed by a court to manage the finances and property of another person. When someone acts in bad faith, as was proven against Mr King, the term used is Mala Fides.

Mr King evidently went out of his way to avoid the repossession and subsequent sale of a Ferrari, three Mercededes Benz vehicles and a golf cabriolet. He concealed them from the curator bonis and claimed in court that all five vehicles were at a panel beater. Mr King is evidently being, yet again a glib and shameless liar.

Mr King wilfully engaged in spoliation, which is a legal term for plundering. Since the properties were preserved for sale, Mr King chose to defy the court order and strip the contents of his two properties, including his extensive wine cellar. When asked to disclose the inventory of his wine cellar which was an asset owned by Talacar, which owned Quoin Rock Winery, he claimed the wine was not owned by Talacar. Mr King openly defied the court order, registered the wine under a new company, Gaius Atticus, and transported it to his Johannesburg home. With Mr Kings customary stupidity and self-aggrandising desire for conspicuous consumption, he chose to show Jim White his extensive wine cellar in a puff piece for Sky Sports. Since broadcast, this wine cellar, the contents of which were misappropriated, has been removed by court order by the new owners of The Quoin Rock winery.

In point 16 you will note that Mr King wrote an e-mail to estate agents to arrest the marketing of his properties that were being sold to repay his tax debts. You will further note that Mr King cancelled the insurance on his five vehicles so that they could not be driven to auction. He also concealed the keys of the vehicles.

This individual is chairman of Rangers. He has been passed fit and proper by what passes for governance in Scottish Football. As you can see from the salient details of the judgement, Mr King is currently under licence on a sentence of three months imprisonment. I posit that he will do everything in his power to avoid appearing in court on December 9. He will attempt to postpone this hearing on his latest contempt of court proceedings until after the licence of his current sentence has expired.

This man will stand before us and ask us to trust him as he carves up Rangers, dilutes the holdings of others opposed to his regime, and strips vocal opponents of their voting rights. The amazing thing is that our lemming shareholders, who have learnt nothing from the Whyte and Green spoliation, will support him. If they do, they are giving a convicted criminal control of our assets. Will he will hide our trophies in what was his wine cellar should the assets revert to BDO?

Cheers.

Even without external backing, you'd still think it was worth the "punt" appealing even if theres little chance

That's the bit I don't follow. Are the HMRC not the main creditor of Old Rangers?

And if that's the case then - presumming available money is distributed by percentages to creditors - wouldn't the appeal decision in favour of HMRC not just mean that the HMRC are now due a bigger percentage of the money available to creditors?

Or is it the case that maybe the BDO are trying to preserve existing percentages and therefore give more money back to the OTHER creditors of Old Rangers??

Im not sure it really matters. My assumption is that BDO are obliged to recover the as much money as the can and reduce the liabilities as much as they can, therefore, paying as much money to legitimate creditors as they can.

[Njord]

Mr X, hector is better served by losing....

Sets a far more lucrative precedent .

Edit to add, that I don't think they will appeal.

It was a unanimous verdict in the CoS , and very very unlikely the SC would entertain an appeal because of that..

Edited November 20, 2015 by Njord

[Homer Thompson]

Mr X, hector is better served by losing....

Sets a far more lucrative precedent .

How?

Edit to add, that I don't think they will appeal.

It was a unanimous verdict in the CoS , and very very unlikely the SC would entertain an appeal because of that..

Im not sure if they'll be allowed to appeal, as you say. I do think that they'll try

[mythstoliveby]

Im not sure it really matters. My assumption is that BDO are obliged to recover the as much money as the can and reduce the liabilities as much as they can, therefore, paying as much money to legitimate creditors as they can.

Ok, I see the reason for the appeal by BDO is probably the obligation to "reduce the liabilities".

- If the appeal by BDO succeeds then the non-HMRC creditors get more of the pot.

- If the appeal by BDO fails then the non-HMRC creditors get less of the pot.

Now, throwing in another factor; if Craig Whyte succeeds in getting *his* name onto the creditors list, then BDO winning the appeal against HMRC will mean that HE will get more of the pot than if they lose.

And THIS must really be messing with the minds of the rangers mob, if Whyte succeeds then there are 2 possible outcomes:

HMRC lose and Whyte wins.

or

HMRC win and Whyte loses.

I kind of hope that Craig Whyte does get himself on to the list of creditors - then we will see who the rangers lot hates more, Hmrc or Whtye??!!!!??!!!!

[Njord]

How? It is a more binding a ruling than the Court of Session one I believe. [Ching]£££[/ching]