The Texas scumbag has raised his head

[New York Red]

Former Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks has applied to the High Court to lift orders preventing him from launching a massive damages claim in the US courts over the sale of the Premier League club.

 

The Texan believes he was the victim of an "epic swindle" when the club was sold against his wishes to New England Sports Ventures for £300million.

 

The sale went ahead after Mr Justice Floyd granted anti-suit orders which prevented Hicks taking action in the Texas courts.

 

If Hicks is successful at the new two-day hearing, he will be able to make damages claims against the Royal Bank of Scotland and former club directors.

 

Paul Girolami QC, representing Hicks, told the same judge today that he was applying to strike out or dismiss claims by Sir Martin Broughton, former chairman of the club, seeking damages against his client for his actions while owner.

 

He said he also sought to discharge the anti-suit injunctions which were granted to stop any frustration or obstruction of action being taken in the UK courts over the sale.

 

Actions brought by RBS against Hicks are no longer in issue and should be stayed, he said.

 

Mr Girolami said he would be opposing applications by Sir Michael and RBS to amend their court actions.

 

The bitter courtroom battle began last October and ended with the sale of the club.

 

Now Hicks is seeking to clear the way for a series of multi-million-pound damages claims against the bank and former club directors.

 

RBS wants to block Hicks and his former partner George Gillett from suing over the sale in which they lost £140million.

 

New England Sports Ventures is also applying to the court to be added to the application for a permanent anti-suit order blocking action outside the UK and European Union.

 

It bought the club after repaying a £237million loan Hicks and Gillett took out with RBS and Wells Fargo and Co.

 

Philip Marshall QC, representing Sir Martin, said it was obvious from public pronouncements by Mr Hicks that his action against his client remained live.

 

"We have a case where serious allegations have been made in public."

 

He said this was having an effect on the reputation of Sir Martin - "a very prominent director and chairman of British Airways and he remains under a cloud".

 

Mr Marshall said that was a situation that should not be allowed to continue and he sought permission to amend the proceedings to seek a declaration that Sir Martin had no liability and that he had behaved reasonably and honestly over the sale.

 

The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow.

 

An RBS spokesman said: "The courts described the claims made by Hicks and Gillett last year as 'not realistic and abusive'. Any further claims against RBS will be vigorously opposed."

[Epic Swindle]

Don't think he's got a chance personally. Maybe if he got it heard in a US court, but surely a UK court who deemed the sale legitimate will throw out a case for damages.

[floyd]

Mr Justice floyd says, "I hope he dies tomorrow"

[JohnA]

Mr Justice floyd says, "I hope he dies tomorrow"

...before adding "f*** off, Purslow"

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

Never fails to warm me thinking that they lost $140m

[Leo No.8]

Got no chance. The home crowd ain't going to go against the home team Tom - as has been said to you before, this has nothing to do with Texas you fat whopper (the fat whopper bit may or may not have been said by the judge originally).

 

F*ck off home and don't come back.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Leo No.8

[mofus77]

Never fails to warm me thinking that they lost $140m

 

£140M

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

 

[mrjunk]

Any update?

[mofus77]

 

 

I know, f***ing sweet.

[Cheesecake]

Never fails to warm me thinking that they lost $140m

 

Great

 

£140M

 

Greater! Totally deserved for their own attempts at an 'epic swindle' which they concocted before 'buying' the club and executed while 'owning' it and bleeding it for £40m+ in interest payments a year.

 

'Buiyng' and 'Owning' arent the correct words but you know what I mean.

[Zoob]

 

 

F*ck off home and don't come back.

 

I don't think he's even come over for the case. Probably wants to save his money now that he can't claim $200,000 in expenses for making the trip over.

[stonty]

Go & lay in your own piss Hicks, you cancerous jackal

[Zoob]

Didn't realise that Broughton is trying to sue Hicks too

 

"Broughton has laid forth a damages claim against Hicks in relation to the American's conduct while owner. " Here

 

 

We should all lay damages claims against Hicks for the emotional damage he did to us while owning our club.

[muleskinner]

Hicks is going to have show that Broughton knowingly acted unlawfully in court to stand a chance, can't see it.

[Tosh]

Hopefully Broughton has the Grab on his side.

[honourablegeorge]

£140M

 

$222M

[Stew F]

Good luck, you fat Texan conman in your attempt to discredit SIR Martin Broughton, CHAIRMAN of BRITISH Airways in an ENGLISH court that's already ruled against you

[dave]

Correct me if I'm wrong here but aren't they just going to:

 

(a) lose loads more money again?

 

(b) be publicly humililiated again?

 

Edited February 10, 2011 by Monkippor

[Tommy Cockles]

Never fails to warm me thinking that they lost $140m

 

This.

[Falconhoof]

Good luck, you fat Texan conman in your attempt to discredit SIR Martin Broughton, CHAIRMAN of BRITISH Airways in an ENGLISH court that's already ruled against you

 

his knighthood and his employment by british airways will have no bearing. After all peers have been found against in English courts and British companies have lost cases.

Its all about the merits of the claim and the facts of the case.

[Stew F]

his knighthood and his employment by british airways will have no bearing. After all peers have been found against in English courts and British companies have lost cases.

Its all about the merits of the claim and the facts of the case.

Is that how it works? Cheers

[ion]

I bet he physically threw up when we sold Torres for 50 million That with Babel and some loose change came out as 20% of the club's sale price

[matty]

Hicks is going to have show that Broughton knowingly acted unlawfully in court to stand a chance, can't see it.

No, all he has to do is to show that Broughton and any other director acted negligently, committing errors or omissions. Much lower burden of proof than in a criminal prosecution.

 

If any error at all were committed, there is the possibility Hicks will get something. Unlikely to make the entire case, but there could be a contributory factor.

[Leo No.8]

I bet he physically threw up when we sold Torres for 50 million That with Babel and some loose change came out as 20% of the club's sale price

 

Threw up because of that and the 17 cheeseburgers dipped in Nacho cheese he had for breakfast, the fat blert.