Huw Jenkins and Daily Mail spread propaganda about how The Trust allegedly have unilaterally withdrawn from mediation

[CroJack]

As far as I know, mediation is not mandatory in UK, and the Trust have obviously decided not to wait anymore and sue the sellouts. Go for it.

"An ugly legal dispute is threatening to engulf the ownership of Swansea City, sending the club into further off-field chaos.The Championship club is seeking stability after a turbulent end to the January transfer window that saw chairman Huw Jenkins resign after 17 years in the role.Yet behind the scenes, a row continues to rumble over the initial takeover of 2016 that saw shares sold to Americans Jason Levein and Steve Kaplan who took a controlling 68 per cent. The Supporters Trust claim they were excluded from negotiations, in contravention of a what they claim is a shareholders agreement. The Trust have made public protestations that they wanted all parties to attend mediation in order to avoid going to court over the dispute and a date was set for this month, however, the Trust have for the second time, unilaterally at the last minute, withdrawn from the mediation.

A statement issued by lawyers acting on behalf of club shareholders said:

'We act on behalf of the Swansea City shareholders who sold the majority of their shares in the Club in 2016; notwithstanding four of those still have a significant interest in the club. We are surprised and extremely disappointed to have received notification from the Swansea Supporters Trust's lawyers today that neither they nor the Trust wish to attend the mediation which had previously been proposed to take place later this month. Dates for the mediation had been agreed with the Trust and we had full authority from all of our clients to attend the mediation and resolve the dispute that exists between the parties.
The Trust's representatives have now however notified us that they will not be attending the mediation despite this being very much at odds with what the Trust have conveyed to the public in recent statements about their willingness to mediate. This may have significant costs consequences for the Trust in any future litigation especially as the Trust has previously failed to mediate in December 2018.The selling shareholders are strong in their belief that they are in no way liable to the Trust for the circumstances surrounding the sale of their shares but continue to be saddened that the issues between them and the Trust remain unresolved and the club tragically continues to be damaged in the process.'

The Supporters Trust said they had sought mediation in relation to the 2016 takeover - from which they have always said they were excluded until the deal was at an advanced stage in contravention of a shareholders' agreement - as well as a proposed sale of some of their shares to the Americans, which was shelved in January of this year.

Legal action over the takeover remains a possibility, but mediation was seen as an attempt to resolve the dispute without the need for formal court proceedings and help the club move forward from a period of division and anger."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/a...spute-threatens-engulf-ownership-Swansea.html

 

[Jackflash]

Like yourself CJ I don't think mediation is compulsory, there was a law passed a couple of years back making it mandatory in divorce cases where children were concerned.
It's high time this was brought to a head. Sadly if proven the clock can't be turned back in a lot of instances. My suspicious mind also turns to Jenkins in this move, did he get prior notice of this which has caused him to change horses in mid stream, ( or at least attempt to). Nothing that devious bastard does would surprise me.
The yanks Legal Team say they are extremely disappointed by the Trusts move, why would they be if they feel they have an open and shut case. Possibly they thought the could buy their way out via mediation. Another point that crosses my suspicious mind regarding Jenkins, has he leaked some information to the trust, strengthening there case in an attempt to get back in the good books? Enabling the Trust to move forward with a lot more confidence.
The trust having limited financial funds, must surely have an ace up their sleeve to want to now sidestep prior negotiations. It seems a coincidence this has materialised since Jenkins jumped ship.

 

[The Blobster]

The action is mainly against the sellers (Jenkins & co.)
The trust statements show that the sellers have never responded or agreed to a date for mediation , the yanks agreed a date for this month but the trust lawyers have not heard from the sellers.
This all stinks of Jenkins shitting himself at the thought of losing some of his millions to the trust !

 

[Behindthegoal]

Yes, Blobs, I also had the impression the sellouts has not agreed a mediation meeting. Their statement has managed to put the Trust in a bad light.
My prayer is that HJ has found a conscience and has become a mole or turned Queen’s Evidence.

 

[Jackflash]

The action is mainly against the sellers (Jenkins & co.)
The trust statements show that the sellers have never responded or agreed to a date for mediation , the yanks agreed a date for this month but the trust lawyers have not heard from the sellers.
This all stinks of Jenkins shitting himself at the thought of losing some of his millions to the trust !

The above statement implies that the lawyers represent all Swansea City shareholders (sellers) that sold the majority of their shares in the club in 2016. and express disappointment that The Trust has declined (once again) to go to arbitration on this matter.

 

[ivoralljack]

Slightly puzzled by this. As I understood the situation, our (The Trust) chances of a successful action would have been improved had we gone to mediation but not reached agreement - at least intent to resolve matters would have been shown. I don't know enough about the mechanics of mediation. Would all parties be bound by the decision of the mediator? If so, this would be a risky course to take.

I fervently hope that our lawyers, who have previously stated that we have a strong case, must be very confident that avoiding mediation is the correct way to go and I have to wonder if Jenkins' departure is related to this change of direction.

 

[Yankee_Jack]

Either theTrust has grown a pair of balls, or bottled it and lost the pair they had. Think about who is in charge and historically what his “leadership” wrought and whose side he thinks he is really on. Time will tell, but what would you bet on.

To proceed with litigation without another pole of the Trust membership is, if I recall correctly, counter to previous public statement by the Trust.

I don’t see any reason why the Trust should be in mediation with the Club (I.e, new majority owners) or the Club with the Trust .... unless the Club thinks it has dirty hands and is seeking to wash them.

I have always held that the Trust was damaged by the actions of the sellers, not the buyers (unless there was a conspiracy to defraud), and it is the sellers that must make the Trust whole, Making the Trust whole, for me, is primarily a transfer of shares still held by sellers to the Trust to increase the Trust’s ownership position and secondarily monetary compensation to complete the compensatory award and address the general, punitive and special awards. We have seen, at the very least by the fraudulent filings at Companies House, that something nefarious was a foot. What remains to be determined (at least publicly) is the number of principal actors and the full scope and scale of the actions that were taken.

 

[Jackflash]

Slightly puzzled by this. As I understood the situation, our (The Trust) chances of a successful action would have been improved had we gone to mediation but not reached agreement - at least intent to resolve matters would have been shown. I don't know enough about the mechanics of mediation. Would all parties be bound by the decision of the mediator? If so, this would be a risky course to take.

I fervently hope that our lawyers, who have previously stated that we have a strong case, must be very confident that avoiding mediation is the correct way to go and I have to wonder if Jenkins' departure is related to this change of direction.

Mediation is not legally binding unless agreements are signed after the mediation hearing. the mediator is not empowered to make any binding decisions. Whereas arbitration is decided by a panel that assume the role of judges, and a majority decision is binding.

 

[Yankee_Jack]

To add to the above: the only result of mediation that would address the insult to the Trust would be a transfer to the Trust of shares still held by the sellers (an act of good faith and good will) and payment of the Trust’s costs to date. If sellers are not willing to put that on the table as their first best offer then, for me, there is nothing to mediate.

I think this settlement would be narrowly focused on those sellers that were the principal bad actors. And, would also ensure that these people are no longer a governance stakeholder of the Club.

 

[ivoralljack]

Mediation is not legally binding unless agreements are signed after the mediation hearing. the mediator is not empowered to make any binding decisions. Whereas arbitration is decided by a panel that assume the role of judges, and a majority decision is binding.

Then it's still as I remember it from many years ago. Thought things might have changed. Consequently I am still puzzled. As we are not bound by any conclusions drawn from mediation, would it not make sense to listen to what the other side has to say/offer? I know pigs might fly but you never know; they might offer a settlement that could preclude costly litigation. Unless the intention is to drag the purchasers into the matter with a possible charge of conspiracy to defraud.

 

[CroJack]

The article is actually result of Jenkins' STASI methods. Lies, lies, nnd lies...

The Trust have answered.

"Supporters’ Trust notes with interest, surprise and anger the press release from IPS Law, the legal representative of at least some of the former shareholders of Swansea City Football Club, and the subsequent article in the Mail Online, both of which are factually incorrect and wrongly blame the Trust for lack of progress towards a mediated settlement in relation to the sale of our football club in 2016. We note with surprise that the Mail Online did not seek any comment from the Trust before publishing its article. Legal advice is being taken.

As members will be aware from several previous Trust statements (some still publicly available on the Trust website), the Trust first proposed mediation as long ago as 18th May 2018 in its Claim Letter sent to the Club’s American owners and Huw Jenkins and other selling shareholders. This was sent in order to comply with the High Court’s Practice Direction, which sets out what parties in dispute should do prior to issuing court proceedings. It lays down a maximum timeline of three months within which the defendant parties should provide a full written response to the claim. Whilst the owners eventually provided a belated response, nine months later the Trust was still waiting for one from the Huw Jenkins and others represented by IPS Law. Finally, last Friday Chris Farnell of IPS Law informed our legal representatives that he had been instructed not to provide a detailed response to the claim letter, demonstrating that his clients had no intention of complying with the Practice Direction – and opening themselves to costs sanctions from the court if or when proceedings have to be issued against them.

IPS Law claims that their clients are willing to mediate, but that is at odds with their refusal to address the legal issues set out in the claim letter. Mediation cannot sensibly take place without that response/defence and the Trust cannot commit to wasting the funds of our members whilst the selling shareholders concerned refuse to properly engage in the pre-action process.

The Trust must also respond to the patently untrue accusation that we have twice backed out of a mediation. As our members will be aware, the first proposed mediation towards the end of last year was cancelled due to the late decision of Jason Levien not to attend. It should also be noted that it became clear in the last week that neither of the managing partners of the majority shareholders, Steve Kaplan or Jason Levien, were planning to attend the proposed February mediation dates either, in spite of the Trust having made it clear that the attendance of one of them was vital if the Trust was to commit to spending thousands of pounds on a mediation. Although alternative attendees were suggested, a mediation is much less likely to be productive while the managing partners of the club’s owners are not prepared to fully engage.

It was again the Trust which took the initiative and proposed mediation this year, by letter from its lawyers on 16 January. This specified that Huw Jenkins and the other selling shareholders represented by IPS Law should deliver their response/defence letter by 31 January. As noted already, last Friday, though IPS Law, they refused to do so and in so doing rejected the Trust’s proposal for a mediation. That, coupled with the refusal of Messrs Levien and Kaplan to attend, is the reason that a mediation has not gone ahead. The published allegation that the Trust unilaterally withdrew at the last minute is simply untrue.

The Trust notes that while we remain in dispute with the club’s majority shareholders on various issues, they have at least shown some level of willingness to engage with the Trust. It is disappointing and notable that the selling shareholders concerned, self-proclaimed fans and former custodians of the club, have shown significantly less willingness to engage in the pre-action process.

We also note that the first move of those selling shareholders after the breakdown in discussions was to get their legal representative to rush out and speak to the press, which hardly seems in the best interests of the Football Club from which Huw Jenkins has recently resigned as chairman. It is astonishing that they accuse the Trust of trying to damage the club when we look at the current league position in comparison to 2016.

Whilst the Trust remains willing to engage in mediation, that is entirely dependent on all other parties taking the process seriously. We note the willingness of the selling shareholders concerned, through their legal representatives, to play this out in the court of public opinion rather than through the legal process. We can only conclude that this, along with their reluctance to even put forward a defence to our claim as is required by the courts’ practice direction, can only be due to the fact they know they have no defence. On the issue of costs consequences to the Trust or the impact on our legal position, our legal advisors are fully confident that the record will show it is the Trust that has made every effort to ensure that the mediation process is followed and succeeds, and we have often gone above and beyond to give this process a chance of success.

In terms of next steps, our members will know the Trust is planning a consultation with members next month where our membership would have the chance to vote on the various options available to the Trust. One of these options would be whether to proceed with legal action in relation to the 2016 sale of our football club.

The Trust has extended the offer to the legal representatives of the majority owners to continue discussions between the two parties with a view to seeking a settlement, which we would then present to our members as an option during the consultation. We hope this offer is taken up. In the meantime, the Trust’s legal team will be considering our options regarding pursuing claims against IPS Law’s clients separately.

Swansea City Supporters Trust

13th February 2019

 

[Behindthegoal]

That sounds more like the truth.

 

[CroJack]

That sounds more like the truth.

It seems to me that Jenkins' propaganda machine won't succeed this time.

 

[Yankee_Jack]

Sign up, let's vote, and get the matter sorted.

 

[Jackflash]

Then it's still as I remember it from many years ago. Thought things might have changed. Consequently I am still puzzled. As we are not bound by any conclusions drawn from mediation, would it not make sense to listen to what the other side has to say/offer? I know pigs might fly but you never know; they might offer a settlement that could preclude costly litigation. Unless the intention is to drag the purchasers into the matter with a possible charge of conspiracy to defraud.

If I was Sumbler I'd forget mediation and apply for a court hearing. Mediation with no outcome is playing into their hands,they then know exactly what your case against them entails, and prepare for it accordingly, we already know they can get away with falsifying non existent meetings and forged meeting minutes. I say keep them guessing as they now have no idea exactly what information we have against them. Their asking for a meeting with the Trust behind locked doors with no lawyers present is pretty devious in itself. It can only mean they don't want anything they say on record,why?? what have they got to be afraid of. I get the feeling Jenkins could put the club back in our hands,but it would cost him his millions, also he may well have a gagging order on him which he would have readily signed when the £M's were coming his way. They probably assumed he would bail out when the gullible tw#t discovered all their lies about them being the saviours of our club.

 

[CroJack]

I am still puzzled. As we are not bound by any conclusions drawn from mediation, would it not make sense to listen to what the other side has to say/offer? I know pigs might fly but you never know; they might offer a settlement that could preclude costly litigation. Unless the intention is to drag the purchasers into the matter with a possible charge of conspiracy to defraud.

The courts in UK have made mediation almost mandatory. The Trust had to go through mediation to avoid costs penalties.

"In domestic mediations, parties should have regard to the pre-action protocols that outline steps that parties should take prior to issuing a claim in the courts. The pre-action protocols emphasise cooperation between the parties in order to identify the main issues between them. A failure to cooperate may lead to costs penalties being imposed by the courts regardless of whether a party’s claim is successful or not. In particular, paragraph 8 of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct (PDPAC) indicates that while alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is not compulsory, the courts may require evidence that the parties have considered some form of ADR. In this context, mediation is by far the most popular form of ADR in England and Wales."

 

[Jackflash]

The courts in UK have made mediation almost mandatory.

"In domestic mediations, parties should have regard to the pre-action protocols that outline steps that parties should take prior to issuing a claim in the courts. The pre-action protocols emphasise cooperation between the parties in order to identify the main issues between them. A failure to cooperate may lead to costs penalties being imposed by the courts regardless of whether a party’s claim is successful or not. In particular, paragraph 8 of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct (PDPAC) indicates that while alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is not compulsory, the courts may require evidence that the parties have considered some form of ADR. In this context, mediation is by far the most popular form of ADR in England and Wales."

I think this refers mostly to the amount of court time wasted on divorces and child custody, as it states 'domestic mediation' where ADR can cut the court time considerably.

 

[Yankee_Jack]

Looks like we're going to see push come to shove following the February canvas by the Trust

 

[ivoralljack]

Looks like we're going to see push come to shove following the February canvas by the Trust

Can't wait to see these bastards' hides nailed to the wall. I don't want vengeance, just justice.

 

[CroJack]

I think this refers mostly to the amount of court time wasted on divorces and child custody, as it states 'domestic mediation' where ADR can cut the court time considerably.

No. Business disputes as well. The Trust were clever enough to try to go through mediaton.

https://www.baker-law.co.uk/site/bl...datory-requirement-in-civil-legal-proceedings