SOCCER LIVERPOOL COURT CASE:LIVERPOOL'S PROSPECTIVE new owners were last night scrambling to push through a deal that would end the tenure of Tom Hicks and George Gillett before this weekend's Merseyside derby, following another dramatic day of court action on both sides of the Atlantic.

New England Sports Ventures (NESV) lawyers, confident that a deal could be completed by tonight, were last night pursuing a twin-track approach as they raced against the clock to get the €340 million deal sealed.

The Boston Red Sox owners yesterday moved a decisive step closer to taking control when a high court judge condemned Hicks and Gillett for obtaining a restraining order in a Dallas court, ordering them to withdraw the US petition blocking the sale by this afternoon.

NESV believed that if it could get time before the Dallas judge who dramatically issued the restraining order on Wednesday night and present him with the judgment of the UK court, he could throw it out and allow the sale to complete today.

If that happens, the principal owner John W Henry, who last night returned to the central London offices of Liverpool’s lawyers Slaughter May, would take over in time to attend Sunday’s match at Goodison as the club’s new owner.

But if forced to rely on Hicks and Gillett going to court by 4pm today to withdraw the petition, the deadline set by Mr Justice Floyd, the paperwork would not be complete in time for the weekend. If Hicks and Gillett do not comply with the order, they will be in contempt of court, a serious offence that can carry a prison sentence.

It emerged yesterday that the board had all but agreed the sale of the club to NESV at a tempestuous meeting last Thursday night, at which Hicks and Gillett revealed they had served an injunction blocking the deal that accused RBS and the Liverpool directors of a “grand conspiracy”.

Even as they failed to defend their position in the high court yesterday, lawyers representing the pair were filing a motion in Dallas accusing the Liverpool directors and other advisers of contempt of court in the US for holding Wednesday night’s board meeting, which they claimed was a contravention of the restraining order.

Today’s date is significant because October 15th is when the €270 million owed to RBS and Wells Fargo is due to be called in, although in practice the bank has been able to do so for some time and would be likely to extend the loans until Monday.

It is believed the paperwork and funds are in place for the sale to proceed and NESV’s brief, David Chivers, referred to them throughout yesterday’s hearing as “the new owners”.

“The (former) owners, from beyond the grave, are seeking to exercise with their dead hand a continuing grip on this company. That is simply not acceptable,” he said.

NESV’s hand was strengthened when the Singaporean billionaire Peter Lim withdrew from the process. It emerged in the high court that both Lim’s bid and one from Mill Financial had been discussed on Wednesday but the reconstituted board voted 3-2 to accept the NESV offer, with Hicks and Gillett voting against.

The dramatic attempt by Hicks and Gillett to postpone the sale and claim €1.15 billion in damages looked to have collapsed when Floyd yesterday accused them of withholding the full extent of their similar claim to the high court, which was rejected, and said their actions were “on the face of it, unconscionable”.

“I take RBS’s point that this case has no real connection with Texas. They are right that the commencement of proceedings in the Texan court is an attempt by the owners to depose them of their gains so far in English litigation.”

Solicitors for Hicks and Gillett failed to turn up at the high court, where the pair were accused of the “most outrageous abuse of process” and making “scurrilous allegations” by Richard Snowden QC, acting for RBS. Their allegations that they were the victims of a “grand conspiracy” to sell the club below its market price were “wild and scurrilous” with no evidence to support them, Snowden said.

Lord Grabiner QC, representing Kop Holdings, said there was no way the firms could be included as plaintiffs because the board, led by independent chairman Martin Broughton, had not approved it. “We say the proceedings brought in Dallas are abusive, vexatious and oppressive.”

Guardian Service