Former Liverpool owner to sue but not in Texas

Former Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks has been given the chance to launch massive damages claims over the sale of the club after orders barring action in the US were varied by the High Court.
Hicks wanted Mr Justice Floyd to lift anti-suit orders which prevented him taking action in the Texas courts to halt the sale to New England Sports Ventures (NESV) in October in which he claims he lost £140million.
The judge dismissed that application, but varied the anti-suit injunction to allow Hicks to make applications in the US in support of any proceedings in the United Kingdom if he gives seven days notice to the parties he is suing.
Liverpool are not a direct target of Hicks' claim, as he believes he was the victim of an 'epic swindle' when the club was sold against his wishes to NESV for £300million.
Mr Justice Floyd also dismissed an application to strike out or stay claims by Sir Martin Broughton, former chairman of the club, seeking damages against Hicks for his actions while co-owner.
Repayment
NESV's application to be allowed to join the Broughton action was granted by the judge.
NESV bought the club after repaying a £237million loan Hicks and his former business partner, George Gillett, took out with the Royal Bank of Scotland and Wells Fargo and Co.
Mr Justice Floyd, in his ruling, said the sale of Liverpool came about because of Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett's indebtedness.
As the repayment date for the loan approached, Broughton arranged a board meeting last October to consider two offers, both of which were opposed by the former owners.
Hicks and Gillett purported to remove some of the English directors of the club and replace them with their own men.
Unconscionable conductBroughton went ahead with a board meeting which included the original directors and accepted the offer from NESV.
The judge said the former owners then sought a temporary restraining order in Texas "expressly aimed at stopping the sale".
It was then that he said he allowed an anti-suit injunction "on the basis of what appeared to me to be the unconscionable conduct of the former owners in seeking to undermine the English proceedings".
Of his decision not to discharge the anti-suit injunction, he said: "The reality of the situation is that the former owners have already started two sets of proceedings and openly asserted their intention to start more.
"They will undoubtedly start more proceedings if allowed to do so. There is a real threat that those proceedings will be in the United States."
Of the application to vary the anti-suit order, he said the former owners should be free to be able to make applications in the US courts that would aid proceedings in the UK.