From Duff and Phelpsâ own report on the creditorâs meeting held on 20 June 2012. The results of the voting whether or not to grant a CVA were as follows: Creditors who were owed 23% of the total money voted to accept a CVA. They were due in total £29,310,931,07. Creditors who were owed 76% of the total outstanding voted to reject the CVA. In total these creditors were owed £94,850,898,48. âThe proposal was therefore rejected, subject to any subsequent appeal by any member or Creditorâ. âNotes The Claim of HMRC is admitted to vote in full but £72,786,534,91 is marked âObjected toâ by The Chairman (Paul Clark of D&P) of the meetingâ. So Paul Clark of D&P âobjected toâ some £72m of the amount due. A fat lot of good the objection did, it made absolutely no difference to the vote because according to the report, HMRC were by far the biggest Creditors, thatâs why they had about 74% of the vote against a CVA. The simple fact is that if there was any REAL dispute that HMRC were owed £94m (give or take a few pence) then their voting share would have not been enough to swing the vote against a CVA. If indeed as Paul Clark claims HMRC were only owed £22m or so then why did HMRC not only have about 20% of the voting rights?
My understanding was that the BTC was essentially all about Rangers appealing a claim against them by HMRC (which still hasn't been decided, hence the £72m was "objected to"). Nowt's changed? Oh and your maths is ****e by the way Even if the claim by HMRC was only £22m, then their vote would've been ~40% (£22m of a total of ~£50m)
Even 40% was not enough to stop the CVA being agreed though. And you are right, the FTT was an appeal which has shown to have failed.
Although it probably would have failed, the figure on the creditors bill was always going to be the higher amount until such time as there was a ruling overturning that tax bill. As rangers were putting an offer to creditors before that ruling had been made, though, it had to be the figure HMRC were demanding in the first place. After all, it would be easy for any company to get a CVA accepted if all they had to do was dispute several bills and offer a pence in the pound deal for the remainder that would look, on the surface, attractive to creditors.
No, if 75% of the total value owed to creditors was required for acceptance of the CVA, then it would take more than 25% to reject it. (You guys on something today?)
