Yes, VHPL is privately owned by the Rao's

On the shareholder thing just need clarify the owenship structure. Assuming by shareholders you are referring to those of Venkys India Ltd which is a public company listed on the stock exchange in which VHPL own a large proportion of the shares. VHPL is 100% privately owned and owns VLL (amongst numerous other companies) which in turn owns BRFC. Venkys India Ltd has nothing directly to do with Rovers. I posted a link a while back to the latest ratings agency report on VHPL which gives an insight into its structure, borrowings and cash position. It's rating is A+++ with extremely strong liquidity.

Exactly, let's be realistic he is a barrister trying to persuade the court to lift the restriction. He's hardly going to stand in front of the judge and say it would be good if you could lift this, it's not really a problem but would be nice if you did. Of course he's going to be passionate, beg and lay it on as thick as possible. Any barrister worth their salt would. Waggott and Co have been very careful in how they've worded the no impediment thing, as legally, there is no impediment or restriction. The issue is they need to match every £ with the same amount in a bond / guarantee. So legally they can send as much money as they like, practically it makes it very difficult for them financially.

For clarification they have not been found gullty of anything at this stage and may well not be. They are currently under investigation and any freezing of assets is to protect the authorities during the investigation. If they aren't found to be in breach of any regulations then the said property will have the restriction removed. When they say siezed they don't actually take the property away from them, a charge or restriction will be placed on the property which prevents them from selling, transferring or raising capital against the asset. Also, note that this not a criminal investigation.

£3.7m a couple of weeks ago from VHPL to Venkateshwara London Ltd as per the link in my previous post. Otherwise nothing.

Interestingly the date for the ED to reply to the court petition made on 23/09/24 was by 21/10/24. On the 14/10/24 Venkateshwara Hatcheries PVT Ltd, which is the company under investigation in India and Venkys main holding company that provides investment and remittances to its subsidiaries injected a further £3.7m via share capital into Venkateshwara London Limited, which is the company they set up to purchase and now owns the training complex. Link below: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13452736/filing-history To me it would seem more than a coincidence that they have issued £3.7m of funding via share capital three weeks after making that submission to the court. The last issue of share capital was 12 months ago but was funded by a secured loan from Crossbaron - as you can see the charge is registered just before the issue of the share capital. However this time, no new charge or amendment to the existing charge has been filed. Now it is possible that the original charge allowed for further cash advances in the future, but I think that given the notice filed to the court on 23/09/24 followed by the injection of share capital some 3 weeks later may mean that something in India has changed.

No not really, other than any potential dividend paid by the PLC to VHPL could technically be re-invested in VLL

The 51% is just their holding in Venkys India PLC Rev, it’s held by VHPL and I believe that figure to be accurate.

Sorry it’s taken a while, BH weekend etc. Not much more to divulge really. My colleagues have come back and stick by their original legal interpretation of the court hearing on 31/10/23 in that VHPL are not restricted on sending future funds to VLL as long as they comply with the criteria set out by the court at that hearing. This aligns with the latest club statement but they do concur that the entry in the last set of club accounts seems to contradict this. Sorry this doesn’t really make things much clearer.

Thats Venkys India, which is a PLC listed on the Indian Stock Exchange and is nothing to do with Rovers. The only thing in common is that VHPL is the holding company for the 51% share holding in Venkys India (maintaining a majority holding whilst the remaining 49% are traded on the stock exchange) and is also for the holding company for VLL and in turn BRFC. VHPL also owns / has holdings in numerous other entities across the world.

The judge that was supposed to hear the VHPL Petition is required to sit on a larger bench for another case and therefore is unable to hear the VHPL case.

As I stated previously the above are not my views. My background is corporate finance and the views above are that of two of my colleagues who work in our legal team, both who are qualified solicitors specialising in corporate financial law. What I have posted is their interpretation of the court order from a legal point of view. I’ll pass your comments on to them and see what they say, might not be a quick response as I’m running out of ‘favours’ with them. The issue with this is most of it is pure speculation based upon extremely limited factual information and people are putting two and two together and coming up with 150 in some scenarios. Hence why I’ve refrained from posting.

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.

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

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