Peter Lim wants to buy Liverpool

[MarrickG]

Singapore businessman to renew Liverpool bid: BBC
Tue, Oct 12, 2010
AFP


LONDON - Singapore billionaire Peter Lim is to make a renewed bid for ailing English Premier League giants Liverpool by offering to buy the club for more money than the Americans preferred by the club's board the BBC claimed on Monday.

Lim, who made his fortune in fashion, logistics and agri-business, thought he was the preferred option to buy the club off the unpopular American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett the BBC citing sources close to the Singapore businessman claimed.

However, Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton announced last Wednesday that Liverpool would instead be sold to John Henry's New England Sport Ventures for 300million pounds (S$623 million).

Lim believes that Henry's offer was no better than his in financial terms. Lim was offering to repay all of Royal Bank of Scotland's and Wachovia's 200million pounds of long-term debt, to take on 60million pounds of other debt and to inject 40million pounds of working capital.

The Singapore businessman unlike the American bidders would also finance the whole deal without having to borrow any money.

Executives close to Lim claim he was told by Broughton that this made him a better option for buying the club than New England Sports Ventures.

He was told that Liverpool's board was concerned that the Americans would have to borrow to finance the takeover - ringing alarm bells that the club would find itself no better off under new American owners as their present ones.

Gillett and Hicks for their part are not satisfied with the deal agreed by Broughton with their compatriots and have gone to court over it.

That case is scheduled to get under way in London's High Court on Tuesday with the club's unpopular American owners trying to block the takeover bid.

The case will hinge on whether Broughton had the authority to sell the club to New England Sports Ventures (NESV), against the wishes of the present owners.

Broughton, appointed as independent chairman in April, agreed the sale with the support of managing director Christian Purslow and commercial director Ian Ayre, who out-voted Hicks and Gillett 3-2.

Hicks and Gillett unsuccessfully attempted to sack Purslow and Ayre shortly before the board meeting which approved the deal.

Broughton claims that when the owners decided to sell the club in April, major creditor Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) requested undertakings that only he, as independent chairman, could make changes to the club's board.

Hicks has denied that any such undertakings in place and that therefore Broughton's actions in forcing through the sale were illegal and invalid.

The boardroom battle has coincided with Liverpool's worst start to a season for nearly 50 years, with the club languishing in the relegation zone and eliminated from the League Cup.

 

[saratogas]

Wow this Peter Lim has $ 1.6bilion rich asset. His wife Lin libin must be happy with such a good catch!

The reds can carry the Sinkapore flag- sell the Sinkapore brand.

 

[myo539]

This Peter must be siow! Which ang moh wants to kowtow to a Chinese (Chinese or overseas Chinese) boss? They will make it difficult for him.

The best player will simply down tools and legs and play hard to get. You will see them sitting on the bench more often than playing in the field. They will be kicked out of Premier League and yet demand Premier League pay.

KNNN, their delinquent Rooney earns more than our highest paid Prime Minister and President!

Someone must be siow to pay so much to see balls being kicked around.

 

[silverfox@]

Sg liverpool fans should support Peter Lim, so that they can see Liverpool come Singapore and play during off season, but National Stadium now changing to Sports Hub, have to wait. :p

 

[halsey02]

Sg liverpool fans should support Peter Lim, so that they can see Liverpool come Singapore and play during off season, but National Stadium now changing to Sports Hub, have to wait. :p

After their shelf life expires, Steven Gerald, Carragher...can play in the S League, maybe The Singapore National Team, or maybe Peter can by Owen from Man U....to SINgapore...

 

[Yip Hon]

>



Higher All-Cash Offer

From Peter Lim For Liverpool Football Club


12 October 2010


Singapore businessman, Peter Lim, today lodged an increased offer for LiverpoolFootball Club with the Chairman of the Board of Kop Football (Holdings) Ltd, MartinBroughton.
The proposal represents a total investment of £360m. The offer values the Club at£320m. A further £40m will be made available to purchase new players.
Like the previous offer tabled by Mr Lim, the new offer is entirely in cash and will removethe entire acquisition debt of £200m taken on by the existing owners that has castuncertainty over the Club’s future.
The new offer also includes a cash investment of £120m. Of this:
 £40m cash is to be allotted specifically to fund player purchases during theupcoming transfer window as the immediate priority is to ensure that the squadis strengthened for the remainder of the season
The balance of £80m will pay off all the Club’s bank debt, the fees and interestaccruing on the bank debt, and provide additional working capital for the Club.
Mr Lim is not obtaining any financing for the offer and the funding comes from his owncash resources.
Commenting on his increased offer, Peter Lim said
“I respect and admire Liverpool Football Club, which is steeped in tradition and history. Iam committed to rebuild the Club so that it can soon regain its position at the pinnacleof English and European football, where it truly belongs. This is why I have steppedforward with this offer.
I believe that if its massive debt burden can be removed, the Club would be able tofocus on improving its performance on the pitch. My offer pays off the existing owners’bank acquisition debt and also frees the Club of its own bank debt. If the Board acceptsthis offer, the monies are available immediately thereby removing the threat ofadministration.
The Club needs to strengthen its existing squad. As part of this offer, I will be injecting£40m in cash into the Club for Roy Hodgson to bring in new players during theupcoming transfer window. Liverpool needs to start winning again!
My offer provides a firm financial platform from which the club can rebuild. Given themanner in which the sale process has been handled, I feel Martin and the Board owe itto me, to the Club, and to the supporters, to consider my offer”.

About Peter Lim[/B

]Mr. Lim, 57, is a Singaporean businessman with extensive interests in a range ofindustries including agribusiness, fashion, logistics, food and beverage and healthcare.
Mr. Lim is a keen supporter of sports, having recently donated S$10 million to theSingapore Olympics Foundation for sports scholarships that will provide promisingyoung athletes a chance to pursue excellence, especially for students and athletes frompoor families.
Son of a fishmonger, Mr. Lim is a self-made man who worked his way through school -as a cabbie, waiter and cook – and these humble beginnings have motivated him to help others in need. His philanthropic endeavours focus on sports, the elderly and education.He has committed to fund, for several years, scholarships for bright and needy studentsas well as financial assistance to schools, which help youth-at-risk.
Mr. Lim is a passionate football fan. He is married with two teenage children




>

 

[BlueCat]

as an Reds supporter,i will welcome it.
maybe he needs a new challenge,like owning an football club.

 

[radon39]

Peter is a Man U fan though

 

[halsey02]

Peter is a Man U fan though

With money, loyalty changes....MONEY!:p

 

[Areopagus]

http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/rem...ml?utm_source=rss subscription&utm_medium=rss

Go to Singapore Law Watch Tell A Friend
Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties)
[2010] SGHC 291

Suit No: Suit No 46 of 2006
Decision Date: 30 September 2010
Court: High Court
Coram: Chan Seng Onn J
Counsel: Ang Cheng Hock SC and Lim Dao Kai (Allen & Gledhill LLP) for the plaintiff; Thio Shen Yi SC and Collin Seah Lee Guan (TSMP Law Corporation) for the 1st defendant; Michael Anthony Palmer, Andy Lem Jit Min and Toh Wei Yi (Harry Elias Partnership) for the 2nd & 3rd defendants and 3rd & 4th third party; Johnny Cheo (Cheo Yeoh & Associates LLC) for the 4th defendant; Fong Shu Jan Jasmine (Tan Kok Quan Partnership) for the 1st third party; Burton Chen Nan Chung and Lalitha Rajah (Tan Rajah & Cheah) for the 2nd third party.
Up
Subject Area / Catchwords

Civil Procedure – Costs

Judgment

30 September 2010


Judgment reserved.

Chan Seng Onn J:

Introduction

1 This judgment is in relation to the costs orders to be made in Suit No 46 of 2006 (“Suit 46/2006”). In that action, the plaintiff company, Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd (“RTC”) sued the defendants for breach of their fiduciary duties owed to RTC whilst they were directors of the company (“the Main Action”). That led to three third party claims and one third party counterclaim (“the Third Party Claims”). On 29 May 2010, I gave judgment in favour of the defendants in the Main Action and the Third Party Claims (see Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2010] SGHC 163 (“the RTC Judgment”)). In other words, all the claimants in Suit 46/2006 were unsuccessful.

2 At the conclusion of the RTC Judgment (at [247]), I invited parties to make submissions on costs if these could not be agreed. At the hearing on 4 August 2010, this invitation was taken up by all sides. Each party had its own take on what costs orders would be fair and just in the circumstances and there was little room for agreement. Having considered all their submissions, I now render my decision with regard to costs in Suit 46/2006.

Background facts

3 All the background facts pertinent to this judgment on costs have been amply laid out in the RTC Judgment (particularly at [3] – [31]). As this judgment should be read as a corollary to the RTC Judgment, the same references to parties and documents and the same abbreviations have been employed in both judgments. The rationale for the various costs orders to be made in this judgment is best understood in the light of the main findings in the RTC Judgment and I turn now to those findings, setting out also parties’ submissions on costs in relation to the same.

Main findings in the RTC Judgment and parties’ submissions on costs

The Main Action

4 RTC alleged that the Defendants (viz, Peter Lim, Lawrence Ang, William Tan and Dennis Foo) had breached duties owed to the plaintiff company as its directors at the material time by conspiring on a scheme which enabled them to siphon substantial sums of money from RTC for their personal benefit through the following means:

(a) Accepting 18,992 members into the Club even though they knew or ought to have known that the maximum number of initial members for an exclusive, premier club on the site was around 7,000;

(b) Causing RTC to enter into a sham Management Agreement with EH, under which $78m was paid out by RTC as management fees;

(c) Paying themselves some $13m by way of disguised dividends, directors’ remuneration and reimbursement of private expenses; and

(d) Earning interest from the loan of $33m that they had procured RTC to make to RTCI.

5 These claims were defended vigorously by the Defendants on several fronts, including on the ground that the various impugned transactions had been authorised by the shareholders acting collectively. In particular, Peter Lim sought to distance himself from any alleged impropriety on the part of the directors by denying that he was either a director or a shareholder of RTC at all material times. His denial faced considerable opposition from RTC. Even his alleged co-conspirators, Lawrence Ang and William Tan, brought a counterclaim against Peter Lim and Dennis Foo for an indemnity or contribution on the basis that Peter Lim was a director and shareholder of RTC. On this issue, Lawrence Ang and William Tan aligned themselves with the position taken by RTC in the Main Action.

6 I agreed with the Defendants in the main and dismissed RTC’s claims against them. However, despite Peter Lim’s strenuous disavowal of his role as a director and shareholder, I had no doubt after having considered the extensive evidence led on this issue at the trial, that he had been a de facto director and beneficial shareholder of RTC (see [64] – [68] of the RTC Judgment).

7 While RTC acknowledged in its submissions that in general costs should follow the event, it submitted that where a successful party has raised inappropriate claims or issues which caused delay and expense that general rule should not apply. Since a substantial portion of the trial and submissions was devoted to addressing Peter Lim’s position that he was neither a director nor a shareholder of RTC at the material time, which position was ultimately rejected, RTC proposed that the amount of costs payable to Peter Lim should be reduced by at least 40%. Further, since the expert witnesses’ evidence on the issue of the valuation of RTC was not dealt with extensively by any of the parties or relied upon in the RTC Judgment, RTC proposed that each party should bear its own costs occasioned by the calling of those expert witnesses.

8 Peter Lim sought costs to be awarded to him on an indemnity basis, to be borne jointly and severally by Margaret Tung and Lin Jian Wei, or, alternatively, by them and RTC. Lawrence Ang and William Tan proposed that their costs of defending the Main Action be paid by RTC. There was no dispute that RTC had to pay Dennis Foo’s costs in litigating the Main Action. In addition, Peter Lim, Lawrence Ang and William Tan sought a certificate for costs of more than two solicitors under O 59 r 19 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) (“Rules of Court”).

The Third Party Claims

9 Third party claims were brought against Margaret Tung and Lin Jian Wei, the current directors and shareholders of RTC, as well as against Lawrence Ang and William Tan. The latter pair also instituted a counterclaim against Peter Lim and Dennis Foo.

(1) Lawrence Ang and William Tan v Margaret Tung and Lin Jian Wei

10 In their third party claim against Margaret Tung and Lin Jian Wei, Lawrence Ang and William Tan alleged that:

(a) Margaret Tung and Lin Jian Wei had breached cl 7 of the RTC S&PA dated 6 June 2001, and Recital (F) and cl 4.3 of the Deed dated 18 February 2002;

(b) Margaret Tung and Lin Jian Wei had acted in bad faith, unconscionably and conspired with RTC in commencing the Main Action; and

(c) In so doing, they were using RTC to unjustly enrich themselves.

11 With regard to this third party claim, I held that:

(a)
The Deed had superseded the RTC S&PA (at [212]);

(b)
The Main Action did not fall within the confines of cl 4.3 of the Deed and that clause had not been breached (at [215]);

(c)
Neither bad faith nor unconscionability could constitute causes of action (at [218]);

(d)
It was not the predominant purpose of the Main Action to cause damage or injury to Lawrence Ang and William Tan personally, hence, the claim of conspiracy could not succeed (at [224]); and

(e)
Since RTC was unsuccessful in the Main Action, the issue of unjust enrichment did not arise (at [226]).

12 As for costs, Lawrence Ang and William Tan submitted that their costs incurred in instituting this third party claim ought to be paid by RTC. Any costs ordered against them in respect of Margaret Tung and Lin Jian Wei’s successful defence of this third party claim should also be recoverable from RTC.

(2) Peter Lim v Margaret Tung and Lin Jian Wei

13 Peter Lim shared Lawrence Ang and William Tan’s misgivings of conspiracy amongst Margaret Tung, Lin Jian Wei and RTC with the predominant intention of causing personal damage and injury to him. I found (at [227]) that whatever intention they had to injure him was incidental to the Main Action and dismissed this claim against them.

14 Despite the failure of his third party claim, Peter Lim submitted that there should be no order as to costs, or, alternatively, that RTC should bear his costs. In respect of the costs of their defending these two third party claims against them, Margaret Tung and Lin Jian Wei took the position that costs should follow the event and that separate costs should be awarded to them since they were represented by separate sets of counsel.

(3) Peter Lim and Dennis Foo v Lawrence Ang and William Tan

15 Peter Lim and Dennis Foo claimed that the commencement of the Main Action by RTC constituted breaches on Lawrence Ang and William Tan’s part of cll 2.4(c) and 5.3 of the Deed of Settlement entered into by the four of them. I decided in favour of Lawrence Ang and William Tan because (a) cl 2.4(c) did not cover the loans impugned in the Main Action; and (b) cl 5.3 did not apply when allegations of fraud and dishonesty have been made against Peter Lim and Dennis Foo (see [231] – [232]).

16 Even though Peter Lim and Dennis Foo’s third party claim here was unsuccessful, Peter Lim proposed that there should be no order as to costs, or, alternatively, that RTC should bear his costs. Dennis Foo aligned himself with that position. Lawrence Ang and William Tan submitted that the costs of their defending this third party claim should be payable by Peter Lim and Dennis Foo.

(4) Lawrence Ang and William Tan v Peter Lim and Dennis Foo (in counterclaim)

17 In their counterclaim, Lawrence Ang and William Tan claimed contribution or indemnity from Peter Lim and Dennis Foo in respect of all aspects of the Main Action on the grounds that: (a) Peter Lim was the controlling mind and driving force behind the business of EH, a beneficial shareholder of both EH and RTC and had received large sums of money from EH and RTC through Lawrence Ang; and (b) Dennis Foo was beholden to Peter Lim and was the latter’s agent. I held (at [236]) that owing to the failure of RTC’s claims against the Defendants the issues of indemnity and contribution, which were contingent on RTC’s success in the Main Action, did not arise.

18 Lawrence Ang and William Tan submitted that the costs of their instituting this counterclaim should be payable by RTC. Peter Lim and Dennis Foo sought costs to be awarded in their favour, payable by Lawrence Ang and William Tan, or recoverable from RTC.

 

[myo539]

Wow this Peter Lim has $ 1.6bilion rich asset. His wife Lin libin must be happy with such a good catch!

The reds can carry the Sinkapore flag- sell the Sinkapore brand.

Very pretty wife. Remember took a photo of her when she was an aspiring young actress - fair with long flowing hair.

How long can one recoup the $700 million investment? Risky ro invest in debt-ridden "company" or club. But I supposed he is good at betting on the right horse.