A CONTROVERSIAL electronics entrepreneur has agreed an out-of-court settlement with liquidators trying to claw back cash paid out by one of his businesses just months before it closed with the loss of 420 jobs.
Sam Russell reached an agreement which should bring an end to the long-running legal action launched against him and his Simclar Group by experts from PricewaterhouseCoopers.
They were seeking to recover £3 million dividends declared by Simclar Ayrshire in June 2006, months before Mr Russell closed the business which had plants in Irvine and Kilwinning in 2007.
The liquidators challenged the lawfulness of the dividends that were paid to the parent Simclar Group, which has headquarters in Dunfermline.
Mr Russell sparked fresh controversy in June last year when he put Simclar Group into administration. This was followed by the loss of 138 jobs in Dunfermline..
Last month 104 former employees at the Dunfermline plant were awarded payouts totalling around £1.1m by an employment tribunal after the union Community claimed they had been unfairly dismissed.
The actions of Mr Russell and two other former directors of Simclar Ayrshire regarding the payment of the £3m dividends were due to come under scrutiny in the Court of Session in Edinburgh this month.
After more than two years of procedural debate regarding the civil case launched by the liquidators Lord Hodge had set aside 10 days for a Proof Before Answer in which the issues would be considered in court.
Mr Russell and the other former directors were likely to have been questioned by the counsel for the pursuers, Richard Keen, QC.
The legal teams gathered at the Court of Session on Tuesday but after Mr Keen said the pursuers had reached an agreement with the directors, the hearing was adjourned.
A spokesperson for the Scottish Court Service said the Proof Before Answer was discharged as a settlement had been reached. The spokesperson said the court had not made an order.
The court does not have details of the agreement.
Given the costs involved in pursuing the action, it seems unlikely the liquidators to Simclar Ayrshire would have accepted a settlement that did not involve money being paid.
The settlement proceeds net of expenses may increase the amount available for payment to creditors of Simclar Ayrshire.
Assuming it holds, the agreement will bring down the curtain on a drama which has sparked anger and sadness in Scotland.
Four years ago The Herald revealed Simclar Group had paid "technically unlawful" £200,000 dividends back in 2006. Mr Russell's 90% shareholding would have entitled him to £180,000. His wife Christine's 10% holding qualified her for £20,000.
In a note to the group's 2006 accounts, Simclar Group admitted the payments were made by the holding company although that company had accumulated historic losses
Now aged 67, Mr Russell was a poster boy for the Scottish electronics industry during the boom years of the last century.
After starting Simclar in his garage in Fife in 1976 he grew the company into a global business with operations in the United States, Mexico and China.
The company employed more than 1000 people in Scotland in its heyday.
Mr Russell put Simclar Group into administration following delays in launching a "Green plug" it was working on.
Recent filings by the administrators from Deloitte showed they sold the remnants of the UK operation for just £134,000.The liquidators of Simclar Ayrshire launched a commercial action against Simclar Group, Sam Russell, John Ian Durie and Stephen Donnelly.
At last week's hearing Lord Hodge allowed the claim against Simclar Group to continue.
Upon being appointed administrators to Simclar Group, Deloitte chose not to spend money defending the action being taken against the company as they believed it was not in the best interest of the creditors.
In the company's accounts for 2009, filed in December 2010, Simclar Group said: "The company and certain of its directors are the subject of a claim by the liquidators of ... Simclar (Ayrshire). The claim is being defended vigorously."
Mr Russell declined to comment when contacted by The Herald.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article