The last set of Audio Releases had the aim of promoting that the words and actions of those who benefited most from the administration process at RFC, needed to be challenged.

Court cases are looming and it's important that the character of those who wish to pursue claims against others are closely scrutinised wherever possible, in order to avoid any possible conflict of interest.

Duff and Phelps have emphatically denied, and on public record, that they were aware of the total sum advanced by Ticketus, and that they were the primary funders, until some point in August 2011.

That position is still untenable and I've yet to see D&P withdraw their claims. Grier is documented as being aware in March 2011 and was in effect the Financial Director (by proxy) as soon as the takeover was complete.

He participated in the takeover talks with the Independent Committee and offered comfort that the funds were available. Yet it is Duff and Phelps who are suing Collyer Bristow for the alleged deceitful transaction.

D&P have lodged claims that RFC lost out on a valid investment opportunity led by Paul Murray and that RFC should recover this loss of investment.

That's a very strange position to maintain as the basis of a valid claim. D&P were already aware that the banks and Sir David Murray had dismissed the Paul Murray proposals. As for the reasons to reject, I'm not aware at this time.

Had David Grier disclosed the funding sources to the Independent Committee at any time, this deal could not have proceeded on the terms offered. The term 'duped' would not be available to use by anyone close to the deal either. Handy that.

Their attempts to pass the buck and blame others as being solely responsible, i.e. Gary Withey, is a step too far in my opinion.

So before any Drama Queens get further engrossed in the shock and horror of my 'Sun' type expose on Grier/Duff and Phelps, do consider the bigger picture.

Thousands of investors, debenture holders and fans suffered real distress and loss when RFC went into administration and subsequent liquidation. Many businesses were also damaged. The impact was far reaching and had and would have had a direct hit on many families, including those who may also be subject to litigation.

So please, spare me the moans and groans that my disclosures were a step too far.

Instead, convert that 'shock' into genuine concerns for the wider communities who suffered more due to rogue actions.

This wasn't an 'eye for an eye' type release. It was an intention to make it clear that those involved in the scandal are the ones who should bear responsibility for their actions.

Here we have a team, commonly known as 'The Rolex Boys' during the MCR years, having their secrets spilled. Ones which seem to cover extra marital relationships, prostitutes, cars and foreign holidays masked as corporate away days.

This team participated in probably the worst administration process known to many. Their actions are worthy of much closer inspection regardless of the general unease it might cause to a few.

Reply · Report Post