G&H QC, Paul Girolami, dismisses Friday's deadline and says that instead the owners and RBS are "locked into an agreement" until 1 November.

The response was

QC for RBS says bank has been willing to wave "tens of millions of pounds in fees" to see a sale go through. Also dismisses G&H claim that there is no actual 15 October deadline with the Bank as part of their "game".

My heads gone

Can only hope the TRO gets removed asap

Will Gillet and Hicks ever stop? They seem intent on making life difficult. I'm guessing there is zero chance their attempt at suing is succesful.

Wire_85 wrote:Its isn't our problem it will be theirs after RBS sue them. The whole thing is a joke US judge can do naff all over here unlucky Jim. http://www.scribd.com/doc/39284612/Liverpool-TRO The way its being reported today is that the US court has no jurisdiction in the UK but that neither RBS or Henry would just ignore the threat of being found in contempt of a US court.

Wire_85 wrote:Its isn't our problem it will be theirs after RBS sue them. The whole thing is a joke US judge can do naff all over here unlucky Jim. http://www.scribd.com/doc/39284612/Liverpool-TRO The way its being reported today is that the US court has no jurisdiction in the UK but that neither RBS or Henry would just ignore the threat of being found in contempt of a US court.

The judge has amended the TRO so it reads, based "solely" on allegations, therefore on everything that Hicks has said. Hicks's lawyer would have prepared this lawsuit, the judge has read it and added solely (to cover his back I would imagine)

Secondly, the judge has crossed out "Taking any action in any other court to effect or impede this lawsuit".

I get the impression, a favour has been called, the judge has signed it but added his own caveats to protect himself, but as soon as the big wigs from RBS, Liverpool et al get to work, it will be soon overturned. I doubt the judge would have been aware of the court case yesterday, it wouldn't surprise me if Hicks or his lawyer forgot to mention it.

I don't think this will end up anymore than a slight annoyance to Liverpool in the grand scheme of things. For a start we don't even know what Hicks had told the court about the current court case, it's all a bit desperate really.

The owners gave up their rights to RBS when they re-financed and Martin Broughton had the deciding vote hence the court siding with Liverpool. I don't think this delaying tactic will last too long before it's thrown out.

A kopites status:

"Get in there! F-O Hicks & Gillett, watch out Bluenoses Sunday, we're back!!"

okayyyyyyyy!!!

Pretty confident then are you?

Quick scan of the table suggests you shouldn't be.

BBC are now reporting that Hicks has allegedly sold his shares to Mills Financial, the company that own Gilletts 50%.

There's more twists to this than an episode of 24, but with less guns.

If Hicks is the one that took the TRO out, which I'm sure he was, then surely the injunction is a two way thing and he can't sell shares or change the constitution of the board until the TRO court case on the 25th.

If Mills had bought him out prior to the TRO, well what was the point of the TRO?

I believe RBS and Liverpool are back at the high court at 2:00pm.