I have gained access to a Duff & Phelps document that outlines their modus operandi when they take over a firm and start acting as administrators. The company in question went into liquidation after D&P acted as administrators. The document sent to creditors of the liquidated company has some interesting tidbits as to what modus operandi they follow when acting as administrators. Read the letter available here…
Right at the top of the document is the claim:
“Duff & Phelps delivers independent opinions of collateral value, be it on a fair or liquidation case basis, of assets to be used as collateral, ultimately providing comfort to investors, credit committees and other interested parties.”
In discussing their methodology, D&P claim to use “valuation methodology”.
2. Valuation Methodology – Unlike an engineering consultant’s asset-based approach, we rely predominantly on a cash flow approach augmented by market and cost approaches. This is particularly relevant for syndicated or stapled situations, where stakeholders look for comfort in both liquidation value and ability to service debt.
We know all too well that this is the approach taken by D&P with Rangers.It had to be. The primary concern was to get to the end of the season, and a positive cash flow can ensure that. Stakeholders in Rangers include Craig Whyte, Ticketus, and HMRC. My previous post argued that Ticketus was actually in a much better position by dropping out of the BK consortium and joining the queue of unsecured creditors, arguing that the writing was on the wall for Ticketus. Personally, I think the approach that Ticketus has taken is the right one, as far as their investors are concerned. Lining up as unsecured creditors makes them likely to claw a significant bit of their assets back if liquidation is to occur. The alternative would be a long, drawn out process in which they owned a football club, rather than profited from it.
The letter goes on…
3. Customization of Valuation Approach and Report – We tailor the premise of value depending on the deal situation, the purpose of the valuation and the type of asset(s) being valued; e.g., while the fair market value premise may be may appropriate if a fairly liquid market exists for the asset being valued, a forced sale premise might be most applicable where only a limited market exists, e.g., for a power plant financed in use.
I think we would all agree that a football stadium and a training ground is a perfect example of a “limited market” and therefore, a forced sale premise would be most applicable.
Check out this letter that Duff & Phelps sent to creditors. I refer you to this section about half way down the first page.
In my previous post, I argued that Craig Whyte is a secured creditor, and all of these “bids” and “counter offers” from the Blue Knights and Bill Miller are nothing more than a PR exercise. As the statutory obligation call on adminstrators to attempt to do the following , the fact is that nobody can now accuse Duff and Phelps of failing to satisfy:
clause A) to rescue the company as a going concern, or
If there ever is an example of how a single word can change the meaning of something, look at the word that comes at the end of clause a)…. “or”…
“OR” in this context means that there is no obligation to satisfy more than one of the conditions…
The administrators have to satisfy clause a) OR clause b) which reads
b) “achieved a better result for the company’s creditors as a whole than would be likely if the company were wound up (without first being in adminstration), OR…
Clause C… Ill come back to that.
Earlier today, I read Paul McConville’s post on scotslawthoughts, available here. As Paul makes clear in his blog, D&P finally address the concerns of the creditors…
“However, since then, Mr Miller’s bid team have worked to develop a structure which enables the wishes of creditors to be taken into account whilst ensuring that the Club is taken forward well-capitalised and the requirements of the footballing authorities are met. Mr Miller hopes a solution to all regulatory issues can be found and his team has been in constructive discussions with all relevant parties this week.”
Does this mean that clause A has not been able to be satisfied? I really like Paul’s blogs and writing style. I am a novice to blogging, and Paul has supported me and given me advice.
Something he wrote struck me in his last post…
“There remains an SPL investigation into “double contracts” and illegal payments, and the SFA appeal process is still to conclude.”
This begs the following question: Can you imagine the embarrassment the SFA and the SPL would suffer if they were to rule that there were no double contracts in place at Rangers, only for the FTT to rule that Rangers did, in fact, on the balance of probabilities have double contracts and avoided paying tax and NI through the use of EBTs?
Lost in the discussions about Rangers is the fact that we don’t even know Rangers true level of liabilities. It could rise to £120Million, if the FTT rule against Rangers. Why would Miller bid on a club when the level of known liabilities might double after the FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL return their judgement?
Which brings me to clause C)…
C) realising property in order to make a distribution to one or more secured or preferential creditors.
Who are the secured creditors?
Close Leasing for at least £1.6 million. Craig Whyte. He owns a standard security over the fixed assets of Rangers. I presume this means Ibrox Stadium, Murray Park, and the Albion Car Park.
D&P are now under a statutory obligation to fulfill clause C, if Clauses A&B cannot be fulfilled.
Which brings me to my last point? What exactly is Bill Miller bidding £11.5M for? As CW owns a standard security over the fixed assets, what exactly is he getting?
The share in the SPL?
Nope. That is an intangible that is unclear right now. Maybe that is the reason he is adamant that the SPL refuse to hand out further sanctions for past, uh, indiscretions.
Players? Nope. Most of them have had their contracts reduced so they are free to leave in the summer.
Property? Maybe. But as CW owns a security over the fixed assets, I presume that he will want those without any involvement from CW.
The Club itself? Craig Whyte owns 83.5% of the shares in Rangers. D&P have no power to force him to sell his shares.
The unknown debt? D&P stated today, “this afternoon Brian Kennedy and Paul Murray submitted a bid which is conditional on a CVA being approved by creditors and we will seek guidance from prominent creditors.”
Colour me reactionary, but should D&P not have made clear from the creditors what would have been acceptable first? Remember in the Portsmouth case, HMRC sued to block a .30p on the pound CVA because it wasn’t enough in the Revenue’s eyes, arguing they should have been able to block it in order to get a better return.
If Miller’s bid is £11.5million,what does Mr Miller think he is getting? A club, possibly with an SPL share, with no players of any resale value, and property with two standard securities over them.
To put it into context, his bid also claims to leave the club “well capitalized”. Yowzer.
As Duff & Phelps have yet to receive a bid that accounts for Craig Whyte’s 85.3% shareholding, and without an offer that makes a CVA a legitimate outcome, I agree with Paul’s analysis that liquidation is inevitable, but I also agree with @rangerstaxcase that it won’t be next week. For all the Rangers owe, they are owed quite a bit of cash. The SPL and other football clubs owe Rangers a few million quid.
Hopefully, this blog has shed some light on how OTT the D&P PR has been,but also explains the reasons they have behaved in the manner they have….