The administrators of the oldco Rangers have been cleared of misconduct and a conflict of interest over their involvement in the club.
Duff & Phelps complied with relevant guidance and legislation and there was no prima facie case of misconduct against joint administrators David Whitehouse and Paul Clark, the Insolvency Practitioners Association (IPA) has ruled.
The IPA received complaints that Duff & Phelps broke the organisation's code of ethics as David Grier, a corporate finance partner at Duff & Phelps, gave financial advice to Craig Whyte during and after his takeover of Rangers.
Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark were appointed as joint administrators in February last year and eventually facilitated a sale to Charles Green's consortium for £5.5 million.
IPA investigators examined information from Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse along with several case files. A letter sent to those who had raised complaints said Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse had not acted inappropriately when accepting the appointment.
The letter added: "At worst it was considered that Messrs Clark and Whitehouse failed to fully consider and manage the public perception of a conflict of interest."
The letter also confirms the IPA looked into other aspects of the insolvency process including a £500,000 fee quotation given by Duff & Phelps to Mr Whyte prior to the oldco going into administration.
A recent update from Duff & Phelps suggested its fees would be around £2.7m.
The IPA in its letter said the original quotation was provided on a different basis to the actual work carried out. Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse also faced criticism over decisions they took during the administration such as making players agree to short-term wage cuts and conducting much of the sale process in the media.
The IPA's code of ethics says an insolvency practitioner has to comply with principles of integrity, objectivity, professional competence and due care, confidentiality, and professional behaviour.
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