The Yanks speak ... to Wales Online

I really hope this ends up in a court where they will be found to be what we all know they are, lying, cheating, thieving ****ers. the sooner it happens the better, I don't care if it means we slip further down the league and least these robbing ****ers will be gone.

 

Not sure how it would pan out in a court scenario. Legally or illegally, they currently own the club. If found guilty of an illegal sale, would the courts force a return to previous ownership and could they force Jenkins et al to take it back and what would need to be paid back to the yanks.
Would the previous board and current owners be severely fined / jailed but remain as owners?
Could a court force the current owners to sell? If so, who to and for what price.
Justice might be done and those who acted unlawfully be punished, but it's a tangled web.......
Could take years to unravel, all the while with little / no investment.
I think you're right that court might be the way to go and any illegal activity needs to be punished if proven but not sure what price would be paid by the team and the supporters.
There doesn't seem a simple solution.
The cleanest way forward would be for the yanks to lose interest and cut any losses.

 

I don't believe a court could do a lot in terms of making them leave the club, but at least the truth would come out and they would be shown for what they are. that in my opinion would be enough for them to leave hopefully, I do worry what the Fa or the EFL would do to the club in terms of sanctions, but what ever it is, would be worth it to get rid of the ****ers

 

Perhaps an option for the court would be to award compensation should it feel that the Trust had lost out financially. Having said that, going by the last order faced by the Club, two previous employees still had great trouble extracting their money from the Club.

 

I thought the Bailiffs were going into the club. I hope they do and I would certainly be sending them if they hadn't paid up.

 

And your not winding folk up are you?...............

 

I actually don't even read his posts now, I just glide past them and watch everyone one else get wound up over his Wums, s.

 

You might get lucky, they might seize Bony as an asset and save you 100k a week.

 

I think they eventually paid up. I'm not certain though!

 

Seems they have also now borrowed against instalments for Fabianski & Mesa.

£1.5m x 2 instalments (one in 2019, the second in 2020) for Fab

€1.5m x 2 instalments (one in Jan 2019, the second in July 2019) for Mesa

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00123414/filing-history

 

£6 Million of borrowing from future transfer receipts probably to fund Jenkins losses in transfers, that we are paying out for now, more than likely. Though the club have managed this Bank bridging system for over 10 years to be fair, though maybe not this high..................

 

Just came across this, I don`t knoqw if it requires a thread of it`s own. What a bunch of snakes.

Answers questions about the Trust's Legal Claims and Request for Mediation

Q: What has happened so far?

A: Following the majority owner, at the end of last year, breaking off negotiations to buy part of the Trust’s shareholding in the company which owns the Club (which we’ll call ‘2002 Limited’ for short), the Trust Board instructed lawyers to review the factual background, from the formation of the Trust to 2016 and beyond, and to consider the Trust’s legal position with regard to the 2016 sale and its aftermath.

This resulted in a detailed chronology being prepared and a Claim Letter being sent on behalf of the Trust to the majority owner, Huw Jenkins and others on 18 May 2018, setting out the Trust’s legal claims. This was in order to comply with a standard Direction from the High Court as to what claimants must do before they commence court proceedings. That includes trying to resolve claims with intended defendants at an early stage by negotiation, mediation or other methods that avoid court proceedings.

The Trust’s lawyers therefore proposed mediation, but that was rejected by the majority owner. In spite of that proposal being repeated with further explanation, no further response to it has been received.

According to the Court Direction, intended defendants who receive a Claim Letter must respond to it within a reasonable time and no later than 3 months in a very complex case. The majority owner, through its lawyers, stated that it would provide a reply letter within that 3 month period, but did not do so and shows no sign of doing so. It is clear, therefore, that the majority owner is in breach of the Court Direction.

The other intended defendants, including Huw Jenkins, have also failed to comply with the Court Direction in not providing a response letter within the required period.

Recently, the majority owner has suggested a confidential meeting with the Trust and that possibility is being discussed between the respective lawyers. No indication has been received of what the majority owner wishes to discuss. It is not clear whether it is intended that Huw Jenkins and others should also take part.

A confidential meeting took place many weeks ago between members of the Trust Board, Huw Jenkins and Martin Morgan. Since then, the lawyer acting for them and some other former shareholders has approached the Trust’s lawyers, more than once, to propose a further meeting, but when our lawyers responded with suggested dates, no reply was received.

Q: Against whom are the Trust’s claims made?

A: The Claim Letter was sent to:

the majority owner (Swansea Football, LLC)
other listed shareholders, namely:

OTH 2015 Limited
Martin Morgan
Louisa Morgan
David Morgan
Huw Jenkins
Bulk Vending Systems Limited
Brian Katzen

Jason Levien
Steve Kaplan
Leigh Dineen
2002 Limited (as required by law).

Q: What is the Trust claiming?

A: There are several legal claims, including:

That since the sale of a controlling interest to the majority owner, the affairs of 2002 Limited have been conducted in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial to the interests of the Trust as a shareholder. For example, the Trust was excluded from the share sale and from a new Shareholders’ Agreement between the majority owner and the other remaining shareholders as to how the company is to be managed. If it reached Court and the Court agreed with the Trust, it could (amongst other options) order the majority to purchase all or part of the Trust’s shares for a reasonable price (which the Trust would argue is that which Huw Jenkins and others received).



That the 2002 Shareholders Agreement, which had been operated for many years and accepted as valid and binding, was breached by virtue of the Trust not being given first refusal to purchase any of the shares sold in 2016, by new Articles of Association being adopted without the Trust’s consent and by non-observance of an implied duty of ‘good faith’ between shareholders (e.g. the other shareholders excluded the Trust from knowledge of and participation in negotiations with Jason Levien and Steve Kalpan for the sale of shares to the present majority owner).



That Huw Jenkins and others made misstatements which caused the Trust loss, for which the Trust is entitled to damages, namely that the Trust did not wish to sell any shares and that there was no existing Shareholders Agreement of binding effect.

Although those in receipt of the Claim Letter have not provided the required response letters, it is understood that they deny the claims.

Q: What is mediation? What is the effect of the majority owner refusing it?

A: Mediation is a type of voluntary negotiation in which an independent mediator tries to assist parties to reach an agreement to resolve their disputes. The mediator does not make a decision as to who is right or wrong and cannot force the parties to enter into an agreement. Mediation has a high success rate.

As mediation is voluntary, the majority owner cannot be forced to mediate. However, the Court may punish an unreasonable refusal to mediate, if the stage of court proceedings is reached, by imposing costs sanctions. The Trust considers that the refusal of the majority to mediate is unreasonable and that the failure of Huw Jenkins and others to respond to the proposal is also unreasonable.

Q: What happens next?

A: Due to the refusal of the majority owner to produce a copy of the 2016 Share Sale and Purchase Agreement, as well as some other relevant documents, the Trust has instructed its lawyers to make an application to the High Court for an order for ‘pre-action disclosure’. That is likely to be issued within the next 10 days.

The Trust Board remains willing to mediate or negotiate in good faith, but there has been much delay by the intended defendants and the Trust’s claims cannot remain unresolved for much longer. The Trust’s Board and lawyers are making plans for litigation, should it become necessary, and there will be a full consultation of the members before any decision is taken.

https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/footb...ts-legal-claims-and-request-for-mediation/#69

 

The Trust is just like a club like the Boy Scouts......Not worth the time of day......No Vote, No Say No Nothing and the quicker the owners take the shares off them...and they can they can close down this farce......

 

How thick are you? Your response clearly shows you haven't a clue on this subject, so sit down and shut up and leave it to those that can really understand the subject matter......................

 

In answer to your question , immeasurably

 

This should have been implemented some time ago, but better late than never, it will go to court, because the boardroom nuggets are backed into a corner now that we are in the Championship, they neither have the funds, no the time to any longer wriggle out of this, the Trust clearly now have the momentum, and since the mediation process has almost been exhausted to the Trusts favour, I feel confident that we will win any action in this matter, pleased that this is now happening, litigation should now proceed..................

 

I hear that the Yanks are making back office staff redundant, including one lady who was employed for around 18 years.

 

I have also heard this.

 

Ahhh, must make Huw proud.