When I wrote my article yesterday, I started from the assumption that King was lying. This is always the best foundation when positing any position. Within 24 hours the truth emerges, and as is the custom with our mendacious chairman, when caught out in a lie or an illegal leak of confidential information, he attempts to conceal his lies by engaging in vigorous legal action. King threw away £50m of his ill-gotten gains on fighting an unwinnable war against The South African Revenue Service. In his short tenure as our chairman, RIFC have had to pay costs to Sports Direct for his corporate malfeasance. This cost the club £400,000. He now plans to throw more of our season card good money after bad. Perhaps someone should draw his attention to the IPO prospectus. I refer him to the following:
126.96.36.199 Directors’ liabilities
Subject to companies legislation, every director and former director shall be
indemnified by the Company against any liability attaching to him in
(a) civil or criminal proceedings in relation to the Company or an associated
company (other than a liability incurred in defending proceedings brought
by the Company or an associated company in which final judgment is given
against the directors);
(b) criminal proceedings in relation to the Company or an associated company
(other than a fine imposed in such proceedings, or a liability incurred in
defending proceedings in which the director is convicted and the conviction
(c) regulatory action taken by or a regulatory investigation by a regulatory authority
in relation to the Company or an associated company (unless a sum is payable
to a regulatory authority by way of a penalty in respect of non-compliance with
any requirement of a regulatory nature (however arising));
(d) any application for relief:
(i) under sections 144(3) or (4) of the 1985 Act or 661(3) or (4) of the
2006 Act (power of court to grant relief in case of acquisition of shares
by innocent nominee), or
(i) sections 727 of the 1985 Act or 1157 of the 2006 Act (general power
of court to grant relief in case of honest and reasonable conduct),
unless the court refuses to grant the director relief, and the refusal of relief
is final; or
(e) civil proceedings in relation to an occupational pension scheme of which
the Company is a trustee in respect of liability incurred in connection with
the Company’s activities as a trustee of the scheme (other than a fine
imposed in criminal proceedings, a sum payable to a regulatory authority by
way of a penalty in respect of non-compliance with any requirement of a
regulatory nature (however arising) or a liability incurred in defending
proceedings in which the director is convicted and the conviction is final).
The directors may purchase and maintain insurance for a person who is, or was at
any time, a director, officer or employee of the Company, any company within the
Group or, any other body in which the Company is or has been interested of the
Company against any liability incurred by such persons in respect of any act or
omission in the actual or purported execution or discharge of their duties or in the
exercise or purported exercise of their powers or otherwise in relation to their
duties, powers or offices in relation to the Company or any such other company,
subsidiary undertaking or pension fund.
It is unequivocally stated in 188.8.131.52. in clauses A&B that RIFC must pay for Green’s legal expenses. Furthermore, should Sheikh Imran Ahmad be compelled to face trial, his expenses will also be met by the company.As for insurance, this evidently was not purchased or maintained, and as I pointed out yesterday,any policy would have caveats that clearly stated that serious criminal charges were outwith its purview. Some commentators have inaccurately interpreted 184.108.40.206. (b). This precludes paying the costs of an appeal.
No matter how much money King throws at it, RIFC will have to pay Green’s litigation costs.
However there is another legal action that few have had the foresight to recognize. There is the distinct possibility that the IPO was predicated on misappropriated assets. If this is the case, the legal costs of defending Green from an investors’ class action suit would render RIFC insolvent.