From: Gary Withey <gary.withey@collyerbristow.

com>
Date: 10 August 2011 05:18
To: Craig Whyte <ctw@libertycapital.biz>, DGrier@mcr.uk.com

I spoke to Mr [Redacted] today and expressed that we are very concerned about the leakage
concerning Rangers tax affairs and we are taking this very seriously. We are considering writing to
Mr Hartnett and to the Minister in charge of tax affairs.

I mentioned that this was also a major issue when MIH owned the club. He said that it could be
coming from the court. I suggested he look at the Mac.... blog about the Rangers tax affairs when it
wasn't even before the courts.

I also asked once again if he would move the club's affairs out of Scotland.

He took on board the point about confidentiality and said if they had proof it was an HMRC official
leaking then they would be immediately dismissed. I said that we understand that the Sun newspaper
has a tape recording of the official.

He promised to look into the matter further.


Regards



Gary Withey
Partner


From: Gary Withey <gary.withey@collyerbristow.com>
Date: 12 August 2011 05:29
To: Craig Whyte <ctw@libertycapital.biz>

This is the quote for the interdict.

David is very fair, and works similar to the way I do without running a clock all the time.

Regards

Gary Withey
Partner

T (Direct) +44 (0)20 7468 7234
F (Direct) +44 (0)20 7468 7334



From: David Wilson [mailto:dwilson@warnersllp.com]
Sent: 12 August 2011 10:05
To: Gary Withey
Subject: RE: HMRC
Thanks Gary, I am afraid the application has to be to the Court if Session and involves an early
appearance to argue for Interim Interdict, and possibly a further Hearing on this within a couple of
weeks. I think Counsels fee would be around 750m to 1000 plus vat for drafting, and the same for
each Hearing.
Our own fees for the first months work would be around 2000 plus vat. So for the period to about the
end of September I estimate total cost about 5000 plus vat.
If you are happy for RFC to instruct us direct I would be grateful if you could please ask the person
dealing with the matter to email me (or give me their details to contact them) and I will send terms of
engagement. I would propose to also copy all important info to you and/or Tania if that is ok.
Best wishes,
David


From: Gary Withey [mailto:gary.withey@collyerbristow.com]
Sent: 12 August 2011 09:58
To: David Wilson
Subject: RE: HMRC
Thanks David. On this I would like to have you appointed directly by the club. Can you also let me
have an idea on fees, so that I can arrange a funds transfer.
Regards
Gary Withey
Partner

T (Direct) +44 (0)20 7468 7234
F (Direct) +44 (0)20 7468 7334

From: David Wilson [mailto:dwilson@warnersllp.com]
Sent: 12 August 2011 09:57
To: Gary Withey
Subject: RE: HMRC
Thanks Gary, can you please let me have a copy of the Notice and any background info from RFC
explaining what it knows of the tax debt, what (if anything) is admitted to be due, and what (if any)
arrangements are being put in place to check and respond to HMRC and if need be pay what is
admitted. Also, if there is any info we can give as to the companys ability to pay. If there have been
discussions it would also be good to know what has been said/agreed/threatened by way of further
procedure. I think this will be required before Counsel can draft the Court action.
Gavin leaves on holiday today or tomorrow so I will get alternative Counsel as the first Hearing would
be next week, and it is better to have the same Counsel to draft it and appear.
Best wishes,
David

From: Gary Withey [mailto:gary.withey@collyerbristow.com]
Sent: 12 August 2011 09:50
To: David Wilson
Subject: RE: HMRC
David,
the club wants to go the interdict route. We don't trust customs & excise
Gary Withey
Partner

T (Direct) +44 (0)20 7468 7234
F (Direct) +44 (0)20 7468 7334

From: David Wilson [mailto:dwilson@warnersllp.com]
Sent: 12 August 2011 09:48
To: Gary Withey
Subject: HMRC
Gary,
Further to my earlier email I have looked at some of the older Scottish Law Commission Reports and
Discussion Papers on diligence, and from these it appears that HMRC may not follow the notice of
Summary Warrant with a Charge for Payment in all cases, but can simply treat the notice itself as
sufficient demand for payment before proceeding with enforcement action.
If it does try to Petition to Wind up, it would probably do so on the basis of inability to pay the debt
constituted by the SW/notice rather than failure to pay following service of a Charge, but such an
application is really based on the Court being asked to infer from non-payment that the company is
unable to pay, and therefore insolvent, but the inference can be challenged if there is evidence that
the company can in fact pay, even although it has not yet done so (and the information about the
previous finance director being suspended, etc would be relevant to this.)
Interdict would still be against proceeding with further enforcement action rather than against the SW
itself, and if granted would effectively negate the SW.
Best wishes,
David
David Wilson
26 George Square
Edinburgh
EH8 9LD
T: 0131 662 4555
F: 0131 667 8406



From: Craig Whyte <ctw@libertycapital.biz>
Date: 12 August 2011 05:31
To: Gary Withey <gary.withey@collyerbristow.com>

Ok. Let's go with it. He can contact me directly if necessary

Sent from my iPhone