OYSTON loses yet another court battle

He's a serial loser. Although as far as Blackpool Football Club are concerned, who is he? He'll never have a statue or be remembered, erased from the club's history. The penthouse suite will have longer lasting memories. and stains.
 

Ex-Pool owner Owen Oyston loses another court battle​

Owen Oyston, the former owner of Blackpool Football Club, has lost yet another High Court battle – this time against the official receivers.​

By Agency Reporter
Thursday, 6th May 2021, 2:37 pm
Updated1 hour ago


Former Blackpool FC owner Owen Oyston pictured at a game in September 2018 (Picture: Alex Dodd/CameraSport)

In November 2017 Mr Oyston was ordered by a judge to pay minority shareholder Latvian millionaire Valeri Belokon £31m for his 20 per cent stake in the club after finding that the then club chairman had “illegally stripped” money from the club when it was promoted to the Premier League in 2010.

Over the next two years the parties returned again and again to the Business and Property Courts in London as Mr Belekon tried to ensure he received his money.
High Court judge Mr Justice Marcus Smith repeatedly criticised Oyston for being reluctant to disclose his financial affairs and assets and not meeting payment deadlines.

Receivers were eventually appointed by the court on 13 February 2019 over the shares and properties held by Oyston and the company, Segesta Ltd, later known as Blackpool Football Club Properties Ltd, and now as Denaxe Ltd.

Those assets included shares in Segesta (Oyston owned 97 per cent of its shares); Segesta’s 76 per cent of shares in Blackpool Football Club Limited, which operated Blackpool FC, Blackpool FC’s stadium, training ground, and a Travelodge.
There were also eight residential properties.
The receivers were David Rubin and Paul Cooper.
They were conditionally discharged from their roles on 19 December 2019, following a settlement between Mr Oyston and Mr Belekon two days earlier – just as the sale of the Travelodge was about to be completed for £7.9m.

At the latest court hearing, instigated by Oyston and heard over two days last month, he and Denaxe challenged the amount of money the official receivers took from the realisation of the assets in fees, costs, and disbursements – claiming they were “too high, excessive, unreasonable or disproportionate.”
The sale of the football assets as a package was completed in June 2019 for £8.2m.
Included were the BFC shares, the stadium, and two of the residential properties.
In total the receivers realised £8,937,544 and paid over to Mr Belekon £7,335,774.

As at 19 December 2019, the receivers had paid fees to themselves of £600,000 and were still owed £360,137.
But in his reserved written judgement, Mr Justice Smith said although the receivers had not won on every point, he did not consider that any discount should be made.
“The receivers were entitled to take the approach they did on these issues,” he said.
He added that they were of a “high standard, competent, and capable” and the receivership was complex.

He asked the receivers to put together a draft account, including sums still outstanding, for Oyston and Denaxe to agree.
If they cannot, they should come back to court within three weeks.
In his judgement, Mr Justice Smith said it was “likely” – as the receivers had stated – that “Oyston’s desire to settle the proceedings was in a direct response to the threat of the extension of the receivership and the imminent sale of the Travelodge”.
The receivers also said: “From the outset of the receivership, the receivers encountered obstructive conduct from the claimants and their legal representatives. This had a significant impact on the Receivers’ time-costs and legal costs.”

The judge said he accepted the accuracy of that statement.
 
“From the outset of the receivership, the receivers encountered obstructive conduct from the claimants and their legal representatives. This had a significant impact on the Receivers’ time-costs and legal costs.”

The judge said he accepted the accuracy of that statement.


All together now... 🎵 🥁 One Justice Marcus Smith! -- There's only one Justice Marcus Smith! 🥁 🎵
 
Its been said before but again there are Incredible parallels with trump, entirely dishonest in business, never pays his suppliers, does everything on the cheap, first resort is to not pay, second resort is court action which only works as a threat, because in court he always loses.
 
So, the receivers fees were £930k. Not enough bearing in mind the grief from the Os.
And of the £31m judgement, VB got £17.3m (the £7.3-m mentioned above, plus the £10m he had paid earlier)
 
So, the receivers fees were £930k. Not enough bearing in mind the grief from the Os.
And of the £31m judgement, VB got £17.3m (the £7.3-m mentioned above, plus the £10m he had paid earlier)
Didn’t Belekon get money from the sale of the travel lodge too
 
“He’s got no no fans” as a certain You Tube celebrity would say.
 
Dunno about ALL the costs. But I do remember hearing 5 magic words a few times during the main trial - “costs on an indemnity basis”.

Thanks Mex, I was wondering what the script was given that the receivers didn't win every point but given that he didn't order a deduction I was thinking/hoping that he'd be liable for the costs of all parties.

You will have forgotten more than I will ever know re this so I will just hope that he has to pay the majority of the costs if not everything.

Perhaps we should set up a "Go Fund Me" on here for him ?
 
Thanks Mex, I was wondering what the script was given that the receivers didn't win every point but given that he didn't order a deduction I was thinking/hoping that he'd be liable for the costs of all parties.

You will have forgotten more than I will ever know re this so I will just hope that he has to pay the majority of the costs if not everything.

Perhaps we should set up a "Go Fund Me" on here for him ?
A bucket collection would be better. I think I've got an old one in the shed he can have.
 
"He asked the receivers to put together a draft account, including sums still outstanding, for Oyston and Denaxe to agree.
If they cannot, they should come back to court within three weeks".


Was this statement by His Holiness Marcus Smith from 2019, or am I to understand this was an instruction to both parties at the recent outing? The use of the the phrase "if they cannot" suggest this has just happened but it's not entirely clear from the way the article is written.

If so, there is no chance on this Earth that Catweazle will agree terms with the receivers.

Either way it's incredible that he can still get away with dodging his obligations.
 
Back
Top