Rangers chairman Dave King has lost an appeal against a court ruling forcing him to offer £11m for the club’s remaining shares.

Lawyers for Mr King had argued that a judge went “too far” in ordering him to make a mandatory offer at a price of 20p a share for all those not under his control and that of three other businessmen.

Mr King’s counsel, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova QC, asked appeal judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh to either dismiss the case brought against Mr King by the Takeovers and Mergers Panel or to send it back to the original judge Lord Bannatyne for an evidential hearing.

The senior counsel argued the judge’s belief Mr King controlled trusts which held his family assets were not support by material he replied upon to make his ruling.

ADVERT

Lord Davidson said: “What I say is he has gone too for on this. He should have at least allowed evidence on this point.”

He added that if an offer was to be made at below the current share price it did seem to be “a pointless exercise” which served neither the interests of the shareholders nor the public.

David Johnston QC, for the panel, urged the Lord President, Lord Carloway, sitting with Lord Drummond Young and Lord Glennie, to refuse the appeal.

He maintained that Lord Bannatyne had not fallen into error and there were no grounds for the appeal judges to interfere.

ADVERT

He said a rule requiring anyone who had acquired 30% of shares to make an offer to other shareholders was designed mainly to ensure fair treatment.

Mr King had been found to have acted in concert with George Letham, George Taylor and Douglas Park over his acquisition of shares in Rangers and was obliged to make an offer for all the club’s issued share capital not already owned by them.

Lord Bannatyne held that Mr King’s argument that he does not have the funds to make the offer was “irrelevant”.

The judge said: “When the respondent (Mr King) acting in concert bought shares in Rangers which took them over the 30% shareholding the respondent was aware that the purchase of such a shareholding would mean that a mandatory offer would be required.”

Mr King argued that he had no control over trusts which held assets for his family but the judge said that materiel from the panel showed he had effective control in respect of their affairs.

The trusts had indicated they would not be willing to have their funds used for the share offer.

Lord Carloway said the appeal would be refused and the judges would give written reasons as soon as they could.