Venky’s v Indian Government (a) - 13/1/2025 - Re-Arranged Challenge Match

[tomphil]

29 minutes ago, 1864roverite said:

Consideration is that they have done a plea deal and the next date is for sentence ? Just another scenario 

Sentence for what ?

Surely you'd know they aren't on trial and it is in fact them applying to the courts to be allowed to send money ?

[Brian-Potter]

I’ve not posted much in relation to this. My background is corporate finance which means I have some legal understanding of these kind of cases but I’m by no means and expert and certainly not in Indian case law.

I asked a couple of colleagues who are legally qualified to look at the order that was made on 31.10.2023 and give their  view on it. Again, their first response was they’re not experienced with Indian Law but they have given their view based on their expertise in general and I’ve summarised this below:

The order made on 31.10.23 would appear to confirm that no further approval is required from the court for the future remittance of funds to VLL provided that the terms of the order are met, namely that a bank guarantee in favour for the ED is given for the full amount being remitted, that a break down of the use of funds is provided to the ED, that signed statement confirming the use of the funds is provided by BRFC auditors and that bank statements for both VLL and BRFC are submitted to the ED showing receipt of said funds. As long as VHPL comply with these steps there is no restriction on sending money to VLL / BRFC.

The subsequent court hearings have been petitioned by VHPL and the respondent is the ED. In layman’s terms this means it is VHPL who are taking the ED to court in this instance not the other way around as some people on here seem to think. The view is that the purpose of this would be to get some kind of amendment made to the order, possibly removing the need for the bank guarantee or one of the other pre-requisites. This would suggest that VHPL believe that some element of the investigation has changed and any such change is in their favour as they would need to submit evidence to substantiate any such change request.
 

That’s pretty much it as it stands and is only a view from their perspective based upon the information available.
 

In terms of the ED’s ongoing investigation into VHPL they aren’t able to comment as none of the details relating to this are in the public domain.
 

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, Brian-Potter said:

I’ve not posted much in relation to this. My background is corporate finance which means I have some legal understanding of these kind of cases but I’m by no means and expert and certainly not in Indian case law.

I asked a couple of colleagues who are legally qualified to look at the order that was made on 31.10.2023 and give their  view on it. Again, their first response was they’re not experienced with Indian Law but they have given their view based on their expertise in general and I’ve summarised this below:

The order made on 31.10.23 would appear to confirm that no further approval is required from the court for the future remittance of funds to VLL provided that the terms of the order are met, namely that a bank guarantee in favour for the ED is given for the full amount being remitted, that a break down of the use of funds is provided to the ED, that signed statement confirming the use of the funds is provided by BRFC auditors and that bank statements for both VLL and BRFC are submitted to the ED showing receipt of said funds. As long as VHPL comply with these steps there is no restriction on sending money to VLL / BRFC.

The subsequent court hearings have been petitioned by VHPL and the respondent is the ED. In layman’s terms this means it is VHPL who are taking the ED to court in this instance not the other way around as some people on here seem to think. The view is that the purpose of this would be to get some kind of amendment made to the order, possibly removing the need for the bank guarantee or one of the other pre-requisites. This would suggest that VHPL believe that some element of the investigation has changed and any such change is in their favour as they would need to submit evidence to substantiate any such change request.
 

That’s pretty much it as it stands and is only a view from their perspective based upon the information available.
 

In terms of the ED’s ongoing investigation into VHPL they aren’t able to comment as none of the details relating to this are in the public domain.
 

A distinction has previously been drawn on here between a bond and a guarantee. I believe it was stated that a guarantee would just mean Venkys promise to pay (to the Indian tax authorities?) the full amount they've sent if things go tits up (to use the proper legal parlance). Whereas a bond would mean they physically need to give an equal amount over to be held (by the Indian tax authorities?) in case of things going tits up.

I know it's an Indian case, but are you or your colleagues clear on which one it appears to be saying?

If it's the former, it exposes it as a really shitty excuse to not send funds, and we haven't heard of them sending any funds since I think it was November.

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, lraC said:

It’s not a criminal matter. 

Their running of the club should be...

[Paul Mellelieu]

1 hour ago, Brian-Potter said:

I’ve not posted much in relation to this. My background is corporate finance which means I have some legal understanding of these kind of cases but I’m by no means and expert and certainly not in Indian case law.

I asked a couple of colleagues who are legally qualified to look at the order that was made on 31.10.2023 and give their  view on it. Again, their first response was they’re not experienced with Indian Law but they have given their view based on their expertise in general and I’ve summarised this below:

The order made on 31.10.23 would appear to confirm that no further approval is required from the court for the future remittance of funds to VLL provided that the terms of the order are met, namely that a bank guarantee in favour for the ED is given for the full amount being remitted, that a break down of the use of funds is provided to the ED, that signed statement confirming the use of the funds is provided by BRFC auditors and that bank statements for both VLL and BRFC are submitted to the ED showing receipt of said funds. As long as VHPL comply with these steps there is no restriction on sending money to VLL / BRFC.

The subsequent court hearings have been petitioned by VHPL and the respondent is the ED. In layman’s terms this means it is VHPL who are taking the ED to court in this instance not the other way around as some people on here seem to think. The view is that the purpose of this would be to get some kind of amendment made to the order, possibly removing the need for the bank guarantee or one of the other pre-requisites. This would suggest that VHPL believe that some element of the investigation has changed and any such change is in their favour as they would need to submit evidence to substantiate any such change request.
 

That’s pretty much it as it stands and is only a view from their perspective based upon the information available.
 

In terms of the ED’s ongoing investigation into VHPL they aren’t able to comment as none of the details relating to this are in the public domain.
 

Excuse my ignorance, but what's ED?

[wilsdenrover]

4 minutes ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

Excuse my ignorance, but what's ED?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_Directorate

[Brian-Potter]

The ED is the Enforcement Directorate - this is who is pursuing the case against VHPL 

[Brian-Potter]

9 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

A distinction has previously been drawn on here between a bond and a guarantee. I believe it was stated that a guarantee would just mean Venkys promise to pay (to the Indian tax authorities?) the full amount they've sent if things go tits up (to use the proper legal parlance). Whereas a bond would mean they physically need to give an equal amount over to be held (by the Indian tax authorities?) in case of things going tits up.

I know it's an Indian case, but are you or your colleagues clear on which one it appears to be saying?

If it's the former, it exposes it as a really shitty excuse to not send funds, and we haven't heard of them sending any funds since I think it was November.

Let me ask the question - I’ll post back as soon as hear from them 

[lraC]

3 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

I’d be interested to know whether providing “the bond” opens them up to some form of personal liability as opposed to corporate liability…that might explain a lot…

I guess what Brian P is checking will confirm this.

Bond or guarantee could be the difference between them paying into an account or simply guaranteeing future funds. 

[OldEwoodBlue]

1 hour ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

Excuse my ignorance, but what's ED?

Please don't take offence as seriously, none is intended.

But this sheer lack of knowledge amongst many fans shows how detached they are from the survival of the club they claim to support.... but only on a Saturday between 15:00 and 17:00 (if we are lucky).

It has been the main issue for over a year and can ultimately result in the end of our club but "who are the ED?"

[lraC]

16 minutes ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

Please don't take offence as seriously, none is intended.

But this sheer lack of knowledge amongst many fans shows how detached they are from the survival of the club they claim to support.... but only on a Saturday between 15:00 and 17:00 (if we are lucky).

It has been the main issue for over a year and can ultimately result in the end of our club but "who are the ED?"

You are right. There are people, who again say they support the club, who don’t know about the court case. 

[Ghost7]

Maybe they just don't give a shit about it and want Venky's to sell the club either way?

It's just the latest load of nonsense for me, we've had plenty of it in 15 years.

I don't follow the details of the court case because I know it is a complete and utter waste of time.

[RevidgeBlue]

10 hours ago, Brian-Potter said:

The order made on 31.10.23 would appear to confirm that no further approval is required from the court for the future remittance of funds to VLL provided that the terms of the order are met, namely that a bank guarantee in favour for the ED is given for the full amount being remitted, that a break down of the use of funds is provided to the ED, that signed statement confirming the use of the funds is provided by BRFC auditors and that bank statements for both VLL and BRFC are submitted to the ED showing receipt of said funds. As long as VHPL comply with these steps there is no restriction on sending money to VLL / BRFC.

As I posted the other day, that's exactly the way I interpreted it, but kept getting told I was wrong. The general thrust and purpose of the order seemed quite clear to me. 

As regards whether Venky's merely have to provide a guarantee or physically have to pay an equivalent bond that's not a discussion I was aware of. I thought we'd always been led to believe by Waggott and Co that they had to pay a bond and that therefore the cost of sending any money over was double what it was previously but it would be no surprise whatsoever if he's been misleading people in this respect as well in addition to every other.

[lraC]

16 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

As I posted the other day, that's exactly the way I interpreted it, but kept getting told I was wrong. The general thrust and purpose of the order seemed quite clear to me. 

As regards whether Venky's merely have to provide a guarantee or physically have to pay an equivalent bond that's not a discussion I was aware of. I thought we'd always been led to believe by Waggott and Co that they had to pay a bond and that therefore the cost of sending any money over was double what it was previously but it would be no surprise whatsoever if he's been misleading people in this respect as well in addition to every other.

I suppose they key question is whether they are likely to lose the bond or not. Given it’s at least 9 months so far, since their last payment, it is looking like they think they will. 

[B16Rover]

3 and a half hours of messing about, talking and all culminating in trying again another day.

ED seems the perfect acronym 

[Forever Blue]

4 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

As I posted the other day, that's exactly the way I interpreted it, but kept getting told I was wrong.
 

 

 

Join the club!
 

I was told I’d be ‘fed a length’ and ‘annihilated’ by  one of the more excitable members of the ‘you’re wrong’ gang.

At least the other two notable members were polite😉
 

[Waggy76]

It is beginning to look like a stage managed stunt , so the owners appear to have their financial hands tied.  

[tomphil]

So maybe all this is about is getting their previous 11 million bond back or charge removed  ?

[Dan]

5 hours ago, lraC said:

I suppose they key question is whether they are likely to lose the bond or not. Given it’s at least 9 months so far, since their last payment, it is looking like they think they will. 

They throw away money for fun, it’ll be a pride thing, they won’t want to lose the cash in this way. They could put 20 million in, cough up the matched amount. Get us to the premier league, lose 20 million but gain a whatever crazy figure it is now and stick it to the courts. But they won’t, because they are thick. 

2 hours ago, B16Rover said:

3 and a half hours of messing about, talking and all culminating in trying again another day.

ED seems the perfect acronym 

Enforcer disfunction 

40 minutes ago, Waggy76 said:

It is beginning to look like a stage managed stunt , so the owners appear to have their financial hands tied.  

Would it even surprise you? Since day it’s been an absolute pantomime. It’s been embarrassing. Lies and deception since they came. 
 

Maybe they are Dingles? It would explain everything. 

Edited August 22 by Dan

[Brian-Potter]

I have received further information regarding the bond / guarantee. Summary is below:

The order made on 31.10.23 clearly states an unconditional bank guarantee is to be made in favour of the ED for the same amount being remitted. A bank guarantee in this situation usually means that the bank guarantee to pay the amount set out in the terms in the event that the petitioner defaults / refuses to pay any amount due up to this value. This would only be called upon if VHPL is found to be in breach of FEMA and a subsequent financial penalty / fine relating to this is not paid. It is worth noting that for the bank to agree to any such guarantee the standing of VHPL with the bank must be A+++ and they would have very large amounts invested / deposited with said bank. I’m not going to get into commenting on the case or the financial position of VHPL, other than publicly available ratings agency documents state that the VHPL Group has huge cash reserves. On a side note, looking at the case history I would make an assumption that the purpose of the hearing is not urgent in the short term. As can be seen in 2023, documents show that when the situation was perilous the hearings were being scheduled and re-scheduled only days apart.

 

[tomphil]

I think it was the journo Harris who had seen a V's bank account with over 400 million in it as part of the fit and proper guarantee's.

Over a decade ago obviously but they'll have plenty reserves to lay a charge against i'd wager.

[lraC]

20 minutes ago, Brian-Potter said:

I have received further information regarding the bond / guarantee. Summary is below:

The order made on 31.10.23 clearly states an unconditional bank guarantee is to be made in favour of the ED for the same amount being remitted. A bank guarantee in this situation usually means that the bank guarantee to pay the amount set out in the terms in the event that the petitioner defaults / refuses to pay any amount due up to this value. This would only be called upon if VHPL is found to be in breach of FEMA and a subsequent financial penalty / fine relating to this is not paid. It is worth noting that for the bank to agree to any such guarantee the standing of VHPL with the bank must be A+++ and they would have very large amounts invested / deposited with said bank. I’m not going to get into commenting on the case or the financial position of VHPL, other than publicly available ratings agency documents state that the VHPL Group has huge cash reserves. On a side note, looking at the case history I would make an assumption that the purpose of the hearing is not urgent in the short term. As can be seen in 2023, documents show that when the situation was perilous the hearings were being scheduled and re-scheduled only days apart.

 

So, they do not need to double up on any payment made, it is just the default position that they find themselves in, should they not use the funds for the stated purpose.

Sounds pretty straight forward to me then, they have decide they don't want to fund us.

I understand that a WATR trust meeting is to take place tomorrow, whereby a vote will take place regarding a plan of action. There is plenty of ammunition here now. 

[Crimpshrine]

18 hours ago, Brian-Potter said:

I’ve not posted much in relation to this. My background is corporate finance which means I have some legal understanding of these kind of cases but I’m by no means and expert and certainly not in Indian case law.

I asked a couple of colleagues who are legally qualified to look at the order that was made on 31.10.2023 and give their  view on it. Again, their first response was they’re not experienced with Indian Law but they have given their view based on their expertise in general and I’ve summarised this below:

The order made on 31.10.23 would appear to confirm that no further approval is required from the court for the future remittance of funds to VLL provided that the terms of the order are met, namely that a bank guarantee in favour for the ED is given for the full amount being remitted, that a break down of the use of funds is provided to the ED, that signed statement confirming the use of the funds is provided by BRFC auditors and that bank statements for both VLL and BRFC are submitted to the ED showing receipt of said funds. As long as VHPL comply with these steps there is no restriction on sending money to VLL / BRFC.

The subsequent court hearings have been petitioned by VHPL and the respondent is the ED. In layman’s terms this means it is VHPL who are taking the ED to court in this instance not the other way around as some people on here seem to think. The view is that the purpose of this would be to get some kind of amendment made to the order, possibly removing the need for the bank guarantee or one of the other pre-requisites. This would suggest that VHPL believe that some element of the investigation has changed and any such change is in their favour as they would need to submit evidence to substantiate any such change request.
 

That’s pretty much it as it stands and is only a view from their perspective based upon the information available.
 

In terms of the ED’s ongoing investigation into VHPL they aren’t able to comment as none of the details relating to this are in the public domain.
 

I am not up on legal or financial matters so I may well be wrong but I can't find any evidence for the assertion that 'no further approval is required from the court for future remittance of funds' as you have stated above.

The order made on 31.10.23 clearly states that £11 million can be remitted with a bank guarantee of the same value. The £11 million could be paid via any number of remittances to the wholly owned subsidiaries mentioned in the order.  There were a number of conditions imposed on each of the remittances that made up the £11 million total. I think this is where people are getting confused. The order uses phrases like 'after every remittance'. This is not a reference to future remittances but only refers to remittances within the total £11 million approved by the order. 

A key sentence is the last line of the order which states 'The bank guarantee will be kept alive for the period of the investgation' - It doesn't mention 'all bank guarantees' or 'any bank guarantees'. There is only one bank guarantee in question and that covers the £11 million. 

I can see no reference to allowing any future remittances.

I think the situation is described much more clearly in the Rovers accounts submitted in April which can be found here (3rd doc on list)

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00053482/filing-history

Under Accounting policies ( going concerns ) page 21, there is an explanation that 2 petitions for interim remittances were approved in June 2023 ( £3,540,000 ) and Oct 2023 ( £11,000,000 ). Encouraged by the success of these 2 petitions, a third petition was lodged in January 2024 asking for permission to send more funds. This is the court hearing that has been postponed a number of times and is now scheduled for November. I don't believe any more funds can be sent until this case is heard. 

The account statement goes on to state that the owners are not in control of when they can send funds and are dependent on the court decision. It states that BRFC would have difficulty in continuing to trade if the court does not permit the release of future funds. I don't see why this would be put in the accounts if the owners are free to send funds without further approval ( providing the bond/guarantee etc ).

In my opinion, if the hearing gets postponed one more time we will be in really big financial trouble.

 

 

 

Edited August 22 by Crimpshrine
typo - changed 'order' to 'investigation'

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, Waggy76 said:

It is beginning to look like a stage managed stunt , so the owners appear to have their financial hands tied.  

Probably didn't start out that way when they couldnt transfer at all but once they got satisfaction of sorts with the existing judgement it does seem to me that they've noticed that it's a lot better to let the Club wash it's own face wherever possible with a few player sales rather than having to dip their hands in their pockets for £20 m plus every year.

Get Waggott to muddy the waters with uncertainty about whether they are or are not allowed to fund us and use the word "bond" instead of "guarantee" to make people think it would cost them double and boom!

You're off the hook.

[Forever Blue]

27 minutes ago, tomphil said:

I think it was the journo Harris who had seen a V's bank account with over 400 million in it as part of the fit and proper guarantee's.

Over a decade ago obviously but they'll have plenty reserves to lay a charge against i'd wager.

£20m a year covering losses at Rovers for them is like me and thee losing a fiver. 
 

Which makes their refusal to pay the guarantee an act of self-sabotaging stupidity.

Edited August 22 by Forever Blue