The following information, in blue italics typeface, has not been edited or amended in any way. It is an accurate and faithful representation of information that can be readily gleaned from the Investor Centre Section of The Rangers website. I have highlighted the key takeaway in red typeface.
“Rangers has an issued share capital of 81,478,201 ordinary shares of 1 pence each in the capital of the Company (“Ordinary Shares”).
Major Shareholding (3% or above):
The Company understands that its major shareholders are as follows:
Shareholder No of Ordinary Shares held % of issued share capital
New Oasis Asset Limited 11,869,505 14.57%
Club 1872 Shares CIC 8,732,254 10.71%
George Alexander Taylor 7,575,000 9.30%
Alexander Easdale 5,256,110 6.45%
Douglas Park 5,000,000 6.14%
Julian Wolhardt 3,632,500 4.45%
River and Mercantile Asset Management LLP 3,523,059 4.32%
George Letham 3,299,515 4.05%
The Ordinary Shares are freely transferable and no Ordinary Shares are held in treasury.
Currently 8,500,000 of the Company’s Ordinary Shares (c. 10.4%) are subject to restrictions affecting the right to vote the affected shares, the right to receive payments or distributions in respect of the affected shares and the right to transfer the affected shares. The affected shares are those identified in the attached Shareholder Information.
Director shareholding interests are as follows:
Dave King has advised that he, his wife and children are interested in all of the shares held by New Oasis Asset Limited (see above for details of that company’s holding)
John Bennett holds 50,000 ordinary shares
Paul Murray holds 570,000 ordinary shares (560,000 of this via his SIPP)”
Despite the clever wording, it clearly states that Dave King has an interest in NOAL. We also note that Dave King’s interest in NOAL was used to call an EGM to gain control and oust the former board. We further note that NOAL have loaned £2.8m to RIFC in which Dave King is Chairman.
As this information is in the public domain, how can King have the audacity to claim that NOAL is an independent company in which he has no executive authority?
However of much more import is whether counsel representing King have misrepresented the facts in his submissions to Lord Bannatyne.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova also stated that King could not readily access any funds and that he was ‘Penniless.’
As I have stated before your humble author does not just lobby for change. He is proactive in pursuing change and righting injustice. The following letter has been sent by e-mail to the Practice Manager of Mr. Davidson’s chamber, Axiom Advocates.
“Dear Ms. Flynn,
I am the creator, author and owner of an award-wining social media site : http://www.johnjamessite.com. I am also a shareholder in RIFC plc. One of your clients, Mr. David Cunningham King of Johannesburg is the self-appointed chairman of the aforementioned company.
One of your most eminent advocates, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova, has in the course of representing Mr. King, made a number of misrepresentation. By way of evidence I enclose an excerpt from the RIFC website which is in the public domain:
‘Director shareholding interests are as follows:
Dave King has advised that he, his wife and children are interested in all of the shares held by New Oasis Asset Limited (see above for details of that company’s holding)’
Our Learned Friend, Lord Davidson, asserted on the 13th October at The Court of Session that Mr King does not have ready access to funds, yet Mr King publicly proclaims that he has an interest in New Oasis Asset Limited, a company that has recently loaned £2.8m to the company in which he has appointed himself as chairman.
Lord Davidson claimed that Mr King does not have the wherewithal to set aside £11m in an escrow account to comply with the edicts of The Takeover Panel Executive. However Mr. King has this quantum and more from the recent sale of his company’s trading division.
Mr King has been described by a senior South African judge as a ‘Glib & Shameless Liar’ and has received a suspended prison sentence in another court as a consequence of his mendacity.
Would it be fair to conclude that Lord Davidson has engaged in sophistry?
I will copy Lord Bannatyne’s clerk of court, Lorraine McNamara, on this e-mail. One can but hope that our estimable Lord Ordinary will take a dim view of the fallacious assertions made by the former Advocate General of Scotland. I have also copied The Takeover Panel as should Lord Bannatyne not uphold their petition they may be minded to appeal.
cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Should I receive a response from any party I will of course revert to my readers.