"Ex-United director's threat to have Ken Bates killed&q

raveydavey

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.c...ctor39s-threat-to-have.5325985.jp

Former Leeds United director Melvyn Levi has been "persecuted" after chairman Ken Bates launched a defamatory "campaign" against him, London's High Court heard.
Mr Levi is also expected to tell Mr Justice Gray that he believes some of Mr Bates' comments are anti-Semitic, although the Jewish businessman's lawyers are not making that claim part of the libel battle.

However, Mr Bates vigorously denies any wrongdoing and has vowed to fight the two-week hearing tooth and nail, with his lawyers counter-alleging that Mr Levi at one point threatened to have him killed.

Opening Mr Levi's case, barrister Simon Myerson QC told Mr Justice Gray that the alleged defamatory comments were made in a number of Leeds United programmes and a letter Mr Bates sent to fans.

They were made in the wake of Mr Bates' takeover of Leeds United Football Club and his subsequent falling out with Mr Levi, who was a director under the previous regime.

Mr Myerson said that Mr Levi had been "seriously injured in his reputation and has suffered embarrassment and upset" by what Mr Bates had said, adding that Mr Bates' conduct had amounted to a "campaign" and Mr Levi felt "persecuted".

The barrister added that Mr Levi's wife had been "frightened witless" after Mr Bates included the couple's address in Leeds in his column for the programme.

On another occasion, the whereabouts of Mr Levi's phone number was also published, and although it had black felt tip pen put through it in an attempt to make it unreadable, Mr Myerson said it was still legible.

Among statements made by Mr Bates which are complained of, Mr Levi has taken issue with two which he says are anti-Semitic.

One referred to him as a "shyster", and the other was entitled "The Enemy Within", which Mr Myerson said was the title of one of the chapters of Hitler's Mein Kampf.

"It isn't part of this claim that Mr Bates is an anti-Semite, it doesn't arise for determination," said the barrister.

But earlier he had said: "Mr Levi will say that he does believe 'shyster' to be anti-Semitic."

In written papers drafted by Mr Levi's legal team, it was said that on October 17, 2006, Mr Bates published an article in the Leeds United programme entitled "Just to bring you up to speed..."

The article followed a disagreement between Mr Bates and Mr Levi, which evolved against the back-drop of complex business dealings surrounding Mr Bates' takeover of the club.

Mr Bates alleges that Mr Levi was wrong to block the sale of a number of shares after an option to buy them was exercised.

In the October 17 article, the papers alleged, Mr Bates had wrongly given the impression that Mr Levi was a "shyster trying to blackmail Leeds United into paying him money to buy him off for not honouring his obligation".

A second article, with the controversial headline "The Enemy Within", was published on March 3, 2007.

The papers alleged that the article wrongly gave the impression that Mr Levi was "trying to blackmail Mr Bates", had engaged in "scurrilous telephone calls and conversations which deterred two would-be serious investors in the club and were criminal", and Mr Levi was "dishonourable" and "his unscrupulous attempts to obtain money had deterred investors".

The following week, an article entitled "Why, Mr Levi, why?" was published in the programme.

It is alleged that the article wrongly gave the impression that "Mr Levi frightened off investors and tried to blackmail the club into paying him money, and excused his actions by accusing Mr Bates of being anti-Semitic".

It was also alleged that the article wrongly suggested that "Mr Levi deterred Alamo Rent a Car from investing in the club", and Mr Levi "closed down Bramley Rugby League Club so as to redevelop the pitch for housing".

In August 2007, Mr Bates published to Leeds Club Members a letter which Mr Levi says wrongly suggested that he had "frustrated efforts to strengthen Leeds United's finances by deterring participants in a rights issue and putting off would-be investors".

Asking Mr Justice Gray to award Mr Levi aggravated damages, lawyers said Mr Bates has "published and continues to publish serious and offensive libels and has denied him an apology or any amends".

The papers added that Mr Bates had published Mr Levi's address, and "it is to be inferred he did so hoping that Mr Levi or his family would be harmed", and had also informed readers where his telephone number was located.

The papers also alleged: "Mr Bates has sought to blame Mr Levi, amongst others, for the misfortunes of Leeds United in the hope of deflecting attention from its financial position and relegation to the First Division of the Football League."

However, Ronald Thwaites QC, for Bates, has put forward a number of lines of defence, and says that Mr Levi is not entitled to a penny in damages.

Mr Thwaites says that Mr Bates was protected by "qualified privilege" as the allegations he made were in the public interest.

The barrister also says that the statements Mr Bates made were "justified" and "fair comment", and expressly denied that he was anti-Semitic or had ever "used language that the Nazis would use".

In written papers composed by Mr Thwaites' junior barrister, Jacob Dean, it was alleged that Mr Levi's behaviour in not agreeing to the sale of the shares could be "fairly described" as "dishonourable, unscrupulous and disgraceful", adding that his demands in the autumn of 2005 "amounted to blackmail".

He added that, during a conversation with a potential Irish investor, on December 13, 2006, Mr Levi tried to deter him from putting money into the club, and then said Mr Bates could be shot.

"Mr Levi made the shocking and deeply disturbing comment that people can get shot over matters like this and that he, Mr Levi, was owed money and he would have no problem going to prison about it," said Mr Dean.

"This scurrilous and disgraceful remark by Mr Levi, reasonably interpreted as a threat on the life of Mr Bates, was reported to the police."

The case continues.

Shocked

_________________
The advert above is nowt to do with me!

Boycott Sheffield

Garp · Allan Clarke Joined: 06 May 2008 Posts: 694

Not dissing you Dave, but fuck me, whocares.....Why can't we just be a football club for once.

30 Mill · Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:39 pm Post subject:

Wouldnt be Leeds if we didnt have some off-field drame these days

Cant remember when we were a stable and successful club

_________________
Remember children, the bigger your post count, the bigger your penis will be

raveydavey · Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:50 pm Post subject:

raveydavey · Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:51 pm Post subject:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.c...hairman-gives-evidence.5336609.jp

Former Leeds United director Melvyn Levi has told London's High Court that it is "extraordinary" that Ken Bates should accuse him of acting dishonourably - while he has gained support in his libel action from the club's former chairman, Gerald Krasner.
Mr Levi, 65, is suing Mr Bates, 77, for libel damages over three articles written by Mr Bates in the club's match-day programme in 2006 and 2007, and a letter sent to fans in 2007.

The court has heard the articles variously accused Mr Levi of being a shyster, an "enemy within", attempting to blackmail the club and scaring off potential investors.

The dispute arose after Mr Bates, 77, took over the club in 2005 from the Yorkshire Consortium Trust, of which Mr Levi was a member.

Mr Bates says that Mr Levi blocked the sale of the remaining shares in the club in 2005 when he had no reason for doing so.

Mr Levi says he was never acting in a personal capacity – but rather for a company he was involved with called Cope Industrial Holdings - and there was a "genuine" legal dispute over whether or not a "call option" on the shares had lapsed.

Mr Levi's stance was today supported by Gerald Krasner, the club's former chairman.

Mr Krasner is Mr Levi's accountant, and was part of the Yorkshire Consortium who took over the club in 2003.

It is Mr Bates' case that Mr Levi should have accepted the advice of an experienced commercial QC, Michael Crystal, who told him that the "call option" had not lapsed.

Mr Levi had earlier spoken to Mr Crystal's brother, Jonathan Crystal, a junior - but still very experienced - barrister who had come to the conclusion that the call option was no longer enforceable.

Mr Krasner told the judge that he thought Mr Levi's argument that the call option had lapsed - and adopting such a stance during negotiations with Mr Bates - was a "legitimate business tactic".

He added that he had tried to persuade Mr Bates to settle his differences with Mr Levi in early September 2005, but although he "was not rude", Mr Bates "seemed clear he had no desire to resolve the dispute".

"While understandably keen to protect his interest, Mr Levi did not take a confrontational or difficult attitude to Mr Bates," said Mr Krasner.

"If anything, it was the other way round, as evidenced by my discussion with Mr Bates in September 2005 when he made it quite clear that he was not prepared to meet Mr Levi with a view to resolving matters."

Eventually, the board of Leeds United Athletic Football Club issued new shares in the club, greatly diluting the importance of the "call option".

From the witness box, Mr Levi has told the judge, Sir Charles Gray, that, because of Mr Bates, both Cope and the Yorkshire Consortium lost seven-figure sums.

"As a result of Mr Bates' actions Cope lost and was never repaid a secured loan worth close to £1.5m," he said. "In addition, the Yorkshire Consortium has lost a £2m unsecured loan made to the club.

"Bearing in mind the breach by the board, led and controlled by Mr Bates, of the share purchase agreement, and the subsequent financial losses suffered by the Yorkshire Consortium and Cope, it still strikes me as extraordinary that Mr Bates should write and publish articles accusing me of dishonourable behaviour," he added.

In his written witness statement, before the court, Mr Levi also revealed that he was considering taking legal action against David Richmond, a fellow member of the Yorkshire Consortium.

Mr Levi claims it is now "clear" that Mr Richmond gave Mr Bates, via a third party, a copy of a note of Michael Crystal QC's legal advice on the "call option".

"It has been confirmed during the disclosure process of these proceedings that it was Mr Richmond who forwarded the note to Mr Bates," said Mr Levi.

"It is likely that I will be seeking leave to rely upon the disclosed documents outside these proceedings and with the other members of the Yorkshire Consortium, will consider proceedings against Mr Richmond.

"Mr Bates went on to make use of the document in a way that potentially caused Cope, myself and my other co-trustees significant financial loss.

"Having regard to their actions in relation to the improperly obtained advice note, it seems ironic that it is Mr Bates who accuses me of acting dishonourably and dishonestly."

Mr Levi, who was banned from Leeds games in 2005 by Mr Bates, has previously said that, by calling him a "shyster" Mr Bates was using anti-Semitic language, although he does not accuse him of being anti-Semetic.

The case, due to last two weeks, continues, with Mr Bates not expected to take the stand until next Tuesday at the earliest.

_________________
The advert above is nowt to do with me!

Boycott Sheffield

BillH · Allan Clarke Joined: 03 Jun 2007 Posts: 678

raveydavey · Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:15 pm Post subject:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.c...irector-Richmond-gives.5339851.jp

Ex-Leeds United director Richmond gives evidence in libel trial

Former Leeds United director David Richmond today told London's High Court that he only leaked a document to Ken Bates in a bid to bring an end to his row with Melvyn Levi.
Mr Levi, 65, is suing Mr Bates, 77, for libel damages over three articles written by the chairman in the club's match-day programme in 2006 and 2007, and a letter sent to fans in 2007.

The articles variously accused Mr Levi of being a shyster, an "enemy within", attempting to blackmail the club and scaring off potential investors.

The dispute arose after Mr Bates took over the club in 2005 from the Yorkshire Consortium Trust, of which both Mr Levi and Mr Richmond were members.

Mr Bates says that Mr Levi blocked the sale of the remaining shares in the club in 2005 when he had no reason for doing so.

Mr Levi says he was never acting in a personal capacity – but rather for a company he was involved with called Cope Industrial Holdings - and there was a "genuine" legal dispute over whether or not a "call option" on the shares had lapsed.

The judge, Sir Charles Gray, has heard that, in September 2005, Mr Richmond gave Mr Bates - via a third party - a copy of a note of legal advice top barrister, Michael Crystal QC, had given over the validity of the "call option".

Contrary to previous legal advice, Mr Crystal said he believed that the call option was enforceable. Such advice weakened Mr Levi's position and strengthened that of Mr Bates.

Mr Richmond accepts that he passed the legal advice note to Mr Bates - but insisted that he only did so in an attempt to make peace.

Sir Charles has already heard from Mr Levi that he is considering whether or not to bring a separate legal action against Mr Richmond over the disclosure.

And Mr Richmond - whose father Geoffrey Richmond used to be the chairman of Bradford City - today told the judge that he was worried questions from Mr Levi's barrister, Simon Myerson QC, were an attempt to garner information for a separate court case.

"Last night's Yorkshire Evening Post, with Mr Levi stating that he is going to sue me, I believe this line of questioning is not for this particular case, he's trying to trap me to launch a case against me later," Mr Richmond told the judge.

But Sir Charles assured him that any line of questioning he perceived to be unfair would be stopped.

Of the disclosure itself, Mr Richmond said he had not done it for any financial gain, or because he was favouring one side over the other, but merely to try and end Mr Levi's dispute with Mr Bates.

"I have got nothing personal against Mr Levi," Mr Richmond told the judge. "I wanted an end to this situation. The reason for doing it was to resolve the difficulties.

"It didn't occur to me that it was something bad. Listen, hindsight says I shouldn't have done it. If I hadn't done it I wouldn't be sitting here today.

"But it is the context in which it was done. I have got nothing against Mr Levi in any way, shape or form."

Mr Richmond added that, when he had set his heart on a certain course of action it was very hard to change Mr Levi's mind, and he hoped by leaking the advice a solution would be found.

"The only way of resolving it was to put their heads together, to bang their heads together, and sort it," said Mr Richmond.

Later he insisted: "I am not on Mr Bates' side; I am not on Mr Levi's side. I am on no one's side. This is something which, from my perspective, should have finished five years ago."

He added that, when he found out the way in which the information was used - Mr Bates mentioned it in two articles he wrote for the Leeds match day programmes in late September - he "wasn't ecstatic".

Sir Charles heard argument from Mr Myerson and Ronald Thwaites QC, for Mr Bates, over whether or not Mr Richmond was bound by a confidentiality agreement not to leak the advice.

Mr Myerson accepted that Mr Richmond had not acted in bad faith but said the confidentiality agreement meant the advice should have stayed secret, while Mr Thwaites insisted that Mr Bates was entitled to the information and there had been no breach.

Mr Richmond himself said: "Everything going on with the football club was public knowledge. Every single thing that was said at meetings ended up in the papers. It was the least confidential group of people I have come across in all my life."

Mr Richmond also gave evidence about the Yorkshire Consortium's takeover of Leeds United in 2004.

The businessman said he thought the consortium was "out of its depth" and he had tried to "walk away" from the deal, only to be persuaded back on board.

Mr Thwaites asked Mr Richmond what his misgivings were about the takeover.

"Everything," he said. "The chemistry of the Consortium, it was clear, wasn't going to be very good. We had taken on something which was financially too big. It was all wrong and time proved it was all wrong."

However Mr Richmond said that, had the Consortium not come in for the stricken club, it would have been liquidated and would not be in existence today.

"There is no doubt whatsoever that if we hadn't bought that football club, there would be no Leeds United," he said.

Mr Levi, who was banned from Leeds games in 2005 by Mr Bates, has previously said that by calling him a "shyster" Mr Bates was using anti-Semitic language, although he does not accuse him of being anti-Semetic.

The case, due to last two weeks, continues, with Mr Bates not expected to take the stand until next Tuesday at the earliest.

_________________
The advert above is nowt to do with me!

Boycott Sheffield

BillH · Allan Clarke Joined: 03 Jun 2007 Posts: 678

The phrase "nest of vipers" comes to mind... only vipers are nicer!

weasel · Nigel Martyn Joined: 29 May 2007 Posts: 400

Perhaps 'nest of shysters' is more accurate

_________________
The league and the FA are fecking idiots

raveydavey · Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:08 pm Post subject:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.c...hing-High-Court-attack.5344725.jp

Melvyn Levi's business partner has launched a scathing attack on Ken Bates at London's High Court - and criticised him for publicising a run-in he had with police 30 years ago.
Mr Levi, 65, is suing Mr Bates, 77, for libel damages over three articles written by the chairman in the club's match-day programme in 2006 and 2007, and a letter sent to fans in 2007.

The articles variously accused Mr Levi of being a shyster, an "enemy within", attempting to blackmail the club and scaring off potential investors.

The dispute arose after Mr Bates took over the club in 2005 from the Yorkshire Consortium Trust, of which Mr Levi was a member.

Mr Bates, who denies libel and is fighting the case every inch of the way, says that Mr Levi blocked the sale of the remaining shares in the club in 2005 when he had no reason for doing so.

Mr Levi says he was never acting in a personal capacity – but rather for a company he was involved with called Cope Industrial Holdings - and there was a "genuine" legal dispute over whether or not a "call option" on the shares had lapsed.

Today Mr Levi's business partner, Jersey-based businessman Robert Weston, gave evidence at the High Court. He owns a 75 per cent stake in Cope, to Mr Levi's 25 per cent, and was involved in the Yorkshire Consortium's take-over of the club in 2004.

As a result of his association with Mr Levi, Mr Weston was also drawn into the row with Mr Bates, but he told top judge, Sir Charles Gray, that he would "resent and utterly refute" any suggestion that he or Mr Levi had ever tried to "blackmail" the club.

Mr Weston said that, in his experience of dealings with Mr Bates over the last four years, "this sort of prejudicial allegation is typical of the antagonistic, emotive and aggressive response I have seen from him when negotiations are not to his liking."

The 66-year-old, from St Helier, also said he felt "obliged" to mention an issue which he claimed was raised "deliberately, publicly and quite unnecessarily by Mr Bates in an attempt to influence my dealings with him".

Mr Weston said that, in 1978, he was "convicted of an offence" after he ended a relationship with a live-in partner and replaced her in his life with a younger woman who became his wife.

He said the conviction had "no bearing" on his commercial "honesty or integrity" and was the only time he had ever been in trouble with the law.

"Since it occurred it has never been taken into consideration by anyone in any area of my personal or business life," said Mr Weston.

But he told the court: "Mr Bates, however, has referred to the matter publicly on at least three occasions in the last three years, by publishing selective and imprecise details in his personal column in the club's football programme and in one or more letters to the club's members.

"I believe this was a blatant attempt to put undue and unethical pressure on me in the hope of persuading me to capitulate to his wishes."

Mr Weston said in his written statement that he is currently involved in a legal dispute with Mr Bates in Jersey, and told the judge that, as a result of that action, he had found that Mr Bates had a "general and consistent lack of transparency" in his business dealings.

Mr Bates, in relation to the Jersey dispute, "has shuffled companies and company names around with the result that material confusion has been generated", alleged Mr Weston.

Turning to the dispute about the "call option", Mr Weston said that Cope had invested £1,439,734 in Leeds United and was receiving interest payments on that sum quarterly.

However, he said, both he and Mr Levi became concerned by September 2005 that the loan was "in jeopardy" because "security" on it had not been perfected even though the club had an "obligation" to provide it.

It was at that stage that Mr Weston and Mr Levi entered into talks with Mr Bates, putting forward a number of compromise solutions. Mr Bates then alleged that the club was being "blackmailed".

At the end of September, a shares rights issue took place which diluted the importance of the "call option", and the club defaulted on interest payments to Cope, the court has heard.

"I am completely satisfied that the rights issue and subsequent events were a contrivance, devised by Ken Bates (and his in-house lawyer), to avoid paying the quarterly interest due on the loan notes up to maturity and to avoid the repayment of the value of those notes when repayment eventually fell due," alleged Mr Weston.

"Mr Bates will no doubt say that I and/or Mr Levi were deliberately trying somehow to prevent him from achieving his aim to wholly own and control the club and to run it profitably for the foreseeable future.

"Any such view was, and remains, a patent nonsense, as both Mr Levi and I would prefer, and would always have preferred, the Club to be successful under Mr Bates' control and, thus, for all parties involved to have received a reasonable return for their investment plus enjoying the satisfaction of having made a meaningful contribution towards saving an historic British football club.

"Any other attitude on our part would simply have been counter-productive to our own interests."

Mr Levi, who was banned from Leeds games in 2005 by Mr Bates, has previously said that by calling him a "shyster" Mr Bates was using anti-Semitic language, although he does not accuse him of being anti-Semetic.

The case, due to last two weeks, continues, with Mr Bates expected to take the stand on Tuesday or Wednesday.

_________________
The advert above is nowt to do with me!

Boycott Sheffield

raveydavey · Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:06 pm Post subject:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.c...-halts-Ken-Bates-libel.5348232.jp

The libel case brought by businessman Melvin Levi against Leeds United chairman Ken Bates has come to an unexpected halt due to an illness in one of the lawyer's families.
Day 6 of the case at London's High Court was postponed just after 10.30am on Tuesday with all parties told to return at the same time on Wednesday.

Judge Mr Justice Gray has already heard from barrister Simon Myerson QC, representing Mr Levi.

He alleged defamatory comments were made about his client in a number of Leeds United programmes and a letter Mr Bates sent to fans, all during 2006 and 2007, and that Mr Levi had been 'persecuted'.

In an October 17 2006 article it was alleged Mr Bates had wrongly given the impression that Mr Levi was "a shyster trying to blackmail Leeds United into paying him money to buy him off for not honouring his obligation."

The comments were made in the wake of Mr Bates's takeover of the club and his subsequent falling out with Mr Levi, a director of the previous regime.

Mr Myerson said that Mr Levi, 66, had been "seriously injured in his reputation and had suffered embarrassment and upset" by what Mr Bates had said in his programme notes.

But Mr Bates has vigorously denied any wrong-doing. His lawyers have counter-alleged that Mr Levi threatened to have Mr Bates killed.

It was alleged Mr Levi "made the shocking and deeply disturbing comment that people can get shot and that he, Mr Levi, was owed money and he would have no problem going to prison". The United chairman, now 77, may now have to wait until Wednesday to take the stand.
The case continues.

_________________
The advert above is nowt to do with me!

Boycott Sheffield

raveydavey · Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:36 pm Post subject:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.c...en-Bates-put-51m-price.5355942.jp

Ken Bates tried to sell Leeds United for £51m to a former vice-chairman of Everton Football Club.
The sale, proposed in early 2007, also included providing Mr Bates with four director's box tickets and access to the chairman's suite if it went through.

But Chris Greg, once vice chairman at the Merseyside club, would only offer £40m on behalf of a consortium interested in buying Leeds and the deal never went through.

The details emerged on day seven of a libel action against Mr Bates at the High Court in London.

The court was also told Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich threatened to shoot Bates.

Solicitor Richard Mark Taylor confirmed details of the negotiations while under cross-examination by Simon Myerson QC representing Leeds businessman Melvyn Levi who is suing the United chairman.

Mr Taylor appeared as a witness for Mr Bates and told Judge Mr Justice Grey he was a director of a number of organisations, including Leeds United.

He was also a legal adviser to Mr Bates and had been involved in various deals including the buying of the club by a firm represented by Mr Bates in 2005 and subsequent deals involving Leeds United's ownership.

During cross-examination Simon Myerson QC asked Mr Taylor about the winding up of Roman's Heavies, a firm which once owned Leeds United.
He asked what was the significance of the name.

Mr Taylor said he thought it was a humorous reference to Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich.

Mr Bates once owned the club before selling it to the Russian billionaire.

The solicitor said: "I think it's a reference to Mr Abramovich's security team, which is a very considerable security team."

Mr Myerson then said: "Not long after this (the winding up) you had to write to Chelsea (football club).

"It was said that Mr Abramovich had threatened to shoot Mr Bates."

Mr Taylor neither confirmed or denied writing the letter.

Roman's Heavies was wound up following a request from Mr Levi.

Mr Taylor told the judge how Mr Levi was "adversely affecting the progress of Leeds United as a club" during its takeover in 2005.

Mr Levi claims defamatory comments were made about him in a number of Leeds United programmes written by Mr Bates and a letter sent to fans, all during 2006 and 2007.

In one article on October 17, 2006, it was alleged Mr Bates had wrongly given the impression that Mr Levi was "a shyster trying to blackmail Leeds United into paying him money to buy him off for not honouring his obligation."

The comments were made in the wake of Mr Bates's takeover of the club and his subsequent falling out with Mr Levi, who was a director of the previous regime, the court heard.

Mr Bates alleges that Mr Levi was wrong to block the sale of a number of shares after an option to buy them was exercised. He has vigorously denied any wrong-doing and is fighting the claim.

His lawyers have counter-alleged that Mr Levi at one point threatened to have Mr Bates killed.

Ronald Thwaites QC, for Mr Bates, has said Mr Levi is not entitled to a penny in damages.

He said Mr Bates was protected by "qualified privilege" as the allegations he made were in the public interest and were "justified" and "fair comment".
Proceeding

_________________
The advert above is nowt to do with me!

Boycott Sheffield

Garp · Allan Clarke Joined: 06 May 2008 Posts: 694

Makes you so proud doesn't it

raveydavey · Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:14 pm Post subject:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.c...tells-libel-trial-Levi.5360209.jp

Leeds United chairman Ken Bates believed a Jewish businessman "played the race card" by accusing him of being anti-Semitic, a court heard.
Mr Bates was giving evidence in a libel trial brought against him by Melvyn Levi at London's High Court.

The anti-Semitic claims play no part in Mr Levi's claim.

Mr Levi alleges defamatory comments were made about him in a number of Leeds United programmes and a letter Mr Bates sent to fans during 2006 and 2007. The articles accused Mr Levi of being a "shyster", an enemy within, of attempting to blackmail investors and scaring off investors.

Mr Bates denies libel and says his comments had qualified privilege as the allegations were in the public interest.

The comments were made in the wake of Mr Bates's takeover of Leeds United Football Club and his falling out with Mr Levi, a director under the previous regime.

Yesterday Mr Bates told the judge, Sir Charles Grey, he believed Mr Levi had "played the race card".

Simon Myerson QC, cross-examining Mr Bates, asked the 77-year-old: "Is that really what you think?"

Mr Bates replied: "Yes, that's a problem. If people from ethnic minorities have problems, rather than accept that they're wrong or ... are incompetent it is not their failing, It's because of 'where I'm from'. It's the last excuse of the failing.

"We've had this experience at Elland Road...when somebody's not doing their job, when they lose it it's unfortunately the race relations industry who say 'Is it because of who you are?' and they say 'Yes'."

Later, under re-examination by Ronald Thwaites QC, Mr Bates said he had been making a point about people who use race to disguise their failings.

During his time in the stand Mr Bates also compared his first board meetings at Elland Road to a "cross between rugby scrum and feeding time at the monkey house" where champagne was "drunk like water".

Earlier the court heard more details about an allegation that current Chelsea owner, Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich, wanted to shoot Mr Bates.

Mr Myerson QC asked Mr Bates to confirm that he was told about the allegation by George Canning, a middleman representing an Irish consortium looking to invest in United in 2006.

Mr Canning had been told the information by Mr Levi.

Mr Bates said after he heard the allegations he told club solicitor Peter McCormick and he referred it to west Yorkshire police who interviewed Mr Canning in February 2007 but no further action was taken.

Both sides will now give their final written submissions.

_________________
The advert above is nowt to do with me!

Boycott Sheffield

raveydavey · Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:47 pm Post subject:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.c...chief-Bates-34invented.5381130.jp

Ken Bates and his witnesses were "prepared to invent evidence" in a bid to strengthen their libel defence against former Leeds United director Melvyn Levi, London's High Court heard.

Mr Levi, 65, is suing Mr Bates, 77, for libel damages over three articles written by the chairman in the club's match-day programme in 2006 and 2007, and a letter sent to fans in 2007.

The articles variously accused Mr Levi - whose address was also printed in one of the programmes - of being a shyster, an "enemy within", attempting to blackmail the club and scaring off potential investors.

The dispute arose after Mr Bates - who is fighting the claim tooth and nail - took over the club in early 2005 from the Yorkshire Consortium Trust, of which Mr Levi was a member.

Leeds's chairman both now and then, Mr Bates says that Mr Levi blocked the sale of the remaining shares in the club in September 2005 when he had no reason for doing so.

Mr Levi says he was never acting in a personal capacity – but rather for a company he was involved with called Cope Industrial Holdings - and there was a "genuine" legal dispute over whether or not a "call option" on the shares had lapsed.

As a result of Mr Levi's stance, further shares were issued in Leeds United, diluting the importance of the "call option" and leaving Mr Levi with, in Mr Bates's own words, a "self-induced bloody nose".

Today, during final submissions in the case, Mr Levi's barrister, Simon Myerson QC, told the judge, Sir Charles Gray, that while Mr Levi's witnesses were "worthy of belief", Mr Bates and his witnesses "are not".

He said much of Mr Bates's defence relied on accounts of oral conversations of which there are no notes, and he had tried to explain away the lack of documentation by a string of "excuses".

"The conclusion to which the court is invited is that Mr Bates and his witnesses were prepared to invent evidence to deal with a problem which they did not perceive until after the case began," said Mr Myerson, using the September 2005 share issue as an example.

"Mr Bates and his witnesses were incapable of belief", alleged Mr Myerson, who said evidence they allegedly "invented" went to the "heart of their case" and was "withheld until the evidence was being given".

Calling on Sir Charles to award Mr Levi substantial libel damages, Mr Myerson said Mr Levi had "made it clear" during his evidence to the court that he was "upset and aggrieved" by the allegations that Mr Bates had made and was "entitled to vindication".

"Mr Bates's conduct and his conduct of the case justify an award of aggravated damages towards the top of the bracket," said Mr Myerson.

"The use of the programme to pressure Mr Levi, the attribution to him of the failure of the rights issue, the publication of his name and address and the use of Mr Levi as a scapegoat are all matters which should sound in damages."

He added: "Mr Bates has not proved the truth of any of his factual allegations. He has not only failed to prove the facts he relies upon, he has consistently stated them in a way which was untrue as at the time of publication."

Later, Mr Myerson added: "No objective writer could have written what Mr Bates wrote."

Mr Levi had described Mr Bates's allegations that he was a "shyster" as anti-Semitic, but Mr Myerson has always said it isn't part of his case that Mr Bates is an anti-Semite.

However, he described Mr Bates's language as "unpleasant", and also criticised him for claiming in the witness box that ethnic minorities "share a common characteristic" of playing "the race card".

"It was disturbing and suggestive of a mind set which discriminates between minorities and others," said Mr Myerson. "It also supports Mr Levi's position that Mr Bates is not careful in his use of language".

But Ronald Thwaites QC, for Mr Bates, urged Sir Charles to find that the articles complained of were not defamatory.

He argued that they were either in the public interest or factually correct, and there was "ample evidence that the sting of the words complained of is true, as explored in depth at trial".

"Mr Levi, jointly with (business partner) Robert Weston, sought to apply pressure which was improper," claimed Mr Thwaites.

"Through such pressure, he sought to obtain benefits which were unwarranted morally, contractually and on any objective analysis of the rights and obligations of him and the club.

"Such conduct was accurately described by Mr Bates as blackmail, in the common use of that word. It was also dishonourable, disgraceful and unscrupulous".

Mr Thwaites alleged that Mr Levi had also acted "dishonourably" in the libel action, submitting "false statements of case" which indicated "awareness of unconsciable conduct".

Allegations that Mr Bates had issued new shares to deliberately dilute the importance of the call option had been "comprehensively refuted on the evidence", while it had been "all but admitted" that Mr Levi had made allegations of anti-Semitism against Mr Bates "with no proper basis".

And far from Mr Bates and his witnesses not telling the truth, said Mr Thwaites, it was actually Mr Levi whose evidence was "extremely unsatisfactory" and he appeared to be "willing to give evidence in adamant and certain terms which was simply untrue".

After hearing closing submissions in the case, Sir Charles has indicated that he will reserve his decision until an unspecified later date.

_________________
The advert above is nowt to do with me!

Boycott Sheffield

halfaperson · David Batty Joined: 13 Jun 2007 Posts: 1157

Blimey, is shyster anti semitic? i never knew that. Cheers for the updates ravy, not pleasant reading over the last few days but much appreciated

_________________
I might Be Middle Class but I'm Hard. Al Dente you might say

ArmleyWhite · Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:38 am Post subject:

halfa, I think that the point that levy is trying to make, but not that successfull I think. He claims it's a racist slur, but Bates and his cronies are arguing otherwise. Trouble is, the system is in place so that nothing is allowed to be said if it is anti-semitic. Can't critisise the jews don't you know!

_________________
Educate yourself, or be happy to be led, it's your choice!!!!!!

http://www.tyspk.com/Pages/Articles.html

"Those who sacrifice Liberty for security deserve neither!!"

raveydavey · Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:42 pm Post subject:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.c...-Ken-Bates-considering.5422933.jp

Leeds United's Ken Bates considering appeal after after losing libel case

Leeds United chairman Ken Bates says he is considering an appeal after being told he could face paying an estimated £1.5m in legal costs and £50,000 libel damages at the High Court to a former director of the club who alleged he was "persecuted".
A judge in London ruled in favour of businessman Melvyn Levi, 65, who brought the action over comments made about him by Mr Bates.

Mr Bates, who was not in court to hear the judgement, was refused permission to appeal and was ordered to make an "interim payment" of £400,000 in legal costs, pending final calculation of lawyers' bills.

But in a statement released via the Leeds United website today, Mr Bates said: "We were disappointed in the judgement handed down, some aspects of which we find rather extraordinary, and we are considering an appeal.

"This morning, the Judge refused us leave to appeal, but also refused to give any reason why, which is unusual. But he will give written reasons in due course.

"When we have received his written reasons we will consider whether to go to the Court Of Appeal.

"Since the manner is still the subject of sub judice neither I nor the club can say any more at this time."

Judge Sir Charles Gray said the libel action arose out of events surrounding the acquisition of Leeds United Football Club by a consortium headed by Mr Bates in 2005.

Mr Levi sued over three articles written by Mr Bates in the Leeds United programme in 2006 and 2007 and a letter written to club members in August 2007.

His claim was that they contained "grave and offensive" libels which "seriously injured" his reputation.

Mr Bates, 78, denied libel, but the judge ruled that he had failed in his defences of justification and fair comment.

Mr Levi, who lives in Leeds, said he was accused of being a "shyster" who had tried to blackmail the club over money.

After the nine-day libel case, Sir Charles Gray commented: "The costs are a horrific burden on him. They would be considered by almost everyone as absurd".

Simon Myerson QC, for Mr Levi, said the costs run up by the businessman - who fought the case on a "no win, no fee" basis - were "just shy of a million pounds".

Outside court, Mr Levi welcomed the judge's decision.

"My only comment is that the judgement speaks for itself," he said. "All I wanted to do was clear my name.

"I only wanted Mr Bates to honour his obligations to myself and Cope, but all I ever got was aggravation for years and me and my wife had to suffer no end of problems and stress.

"I even offered to settle the matter before I came to court.

"It was a risk coming to court because of what I stood to lose, but you have to stand up for your rights."

Describing what Mr Bates wrote in all four programme articles as "riddled with material inaccuracies", Sir Charles said he had failed to "justify" any of the potentially libelous allegations contained within them.

In the various articles, Mr Bates claimed - among other things - that Mr Levi refused to honour an obligation to transfer shares in Leeds United, was trying to blackmail the club, was a "shyster" and had scared off potential investors.

The allegations were made against the backdrop of Mr Bates' takeover of the then stricken club in early 2005 from the Yorkshire Consortium Trust.

Although it initially went smoothly, by September 2005, Mr Bates and Mr Levi - who was part of the consortium - were not getting on.

At the centre of their dispute was whether or not Mr Levi was obliged to give the green light to a share transfer which would have effectively given control of the club to Mr Bates and his backers.

Mr Levi said that he believed there were good legal reasons to believe that a "call option" on the shares had lapsed, but Mr Bates accused him of blocking the transfer for no good reason, and in doing so, forcing him to abandon a rights issue in the club.

As a result of their stand off, new shares were issued, which diluted the importance of the call option, left Mr Bates in a stronger position than before - and saw Cope Industrials Holdings Ltd, a company in which Mr Levi had an interest, £1.4m out of pocket.

Sir Charles said he was "not persuaded" that it was the dispute with Mr Levi which caused the rights issue to be abandoned, observing that it was "convenient strategy" to blame Mr Levi, and the end result of the row was "very satisfactory" for Mr Bates.

Rejecting arguments that Mr Levi had been blackmailing the club, Sir Charles said he did not accept that Mr Levi's conduct could "justifiably be said to have amounted to blackmailing Mr Bates".

The judge said that the description of Mr Levi as a shyster was "substantially unjustified", adding that he did not consider that he used "unscrupulous methods", or that descriptions of him as "totally scurrilous" were justified.

And he said that Mr Bates had "failed to justify" allegations that Mr Levi had acted "contrary to the best interests of the club or that he deterred would be investors".

Part of the court case also centred on an allegation made by Mr Levi in an October 2006 edition of the Daily Mail that, in calling him a "shyster", Mr Bates had used language "the Nazis would have used".

In response to that, Mr Bates accused Mr Levi of making "false accusations" that he was anti-Semetic.

However Sir Charles said: "For Mr Levi to say that Mr Bates used language that the Nazis would have used is a far cry from accusing him of anti-Semitism."

The judge added: "I do not accept that the ordinary, reasonable member of the club reading the programme would have understood Mr Bates' words to be anti-Semitic".

In concluding his judgement, Sir Charles gave two examples of what he believed were inaccuracies.

"Firstly, Mr Bates materially mis-stated the circumstances under which Mr Levi declined to transfer the shares which were subject of the call option, and, secondly, it was not true to say (as Mr Bates did in three of the four publications complained of) that Mr Levi had deterred would-be investors in the club."

Rolling Eyes

I wonder where that bill is going to land..? Thats the equivalent of a decent player and his wages at this level.

_________________
The advert above is nowt to do with me!

Boycott Sheffield

raveydavey · Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:04 pm Post subject:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.c...could-have-avoided-15m.5422933.jp

Bates 'could have avoided £1.5m legal bill'

A SIMPLE apology and a cheque for £15,000 could have saved Leeds United chairman Ken Bates an estimated £1.5m in libel damages and legal costs, it has emerged.
Former United director Melvyn Levi was awarded £50,000 in libel damages against Mr Bates at London's High Court.

Mr Levi, 65, sued Mr Bates, 77, over three articles written by the Leeds United chairman in the club's match-day programme in 2006 and 2007, and a letter sent to fans in 2007.

The articles variously accused Mr Levi – whose address was also printed in one of the programmes – of being a shyster, an "enemy within", attempting to blackmail the club and scaring off potential investors.

After the judgement, Simon Myerson QC, for Mr Levi, told judge Sir Charles Gray that in January 2009, Mr Levi had offered to settle the action for £15,000 damages and an apology, but Mr Bates declined to accept those terms.

The United chairman was ordered to pay the estimated £1.5m legal costs of the nine-day libel case.

Sir Charles said: "The costs are a horrific burden on him. They would be considered by almost everyone as absurd."

Mr Myerson said the costs run up by the businessman – who fought the case on a "no win, no fee" basis – were "just shy of a million pounds".

Mr Bates was refused permission to appeal and was ordered to make an "interim payment" of £400,000 in legal costs, pending final calculation of lawyers' bills.

Outside court, Mr Levi welcomed the judge's decision: "All I wanted to do was clear my name. I even offered to settle the matter before I came to court.

"It was a risk coming to court because of what I stood to lose, but you have to stand up for your rights."

The Leeds United website contains the following statement today from Mr Bates: "We were disappointed in the judgement, some aspects of which we find rather extraordinary, and we are considering an appeal.

"The judge refused us leave to appeal, but also refused to give any reason why, which is unusual. But he will give written reasons in due course. When we have received his written reasons we will consider whether to go to the Court of Appeal."

The dispute arose after Mr Bates took over the club in early 2005 from the Yorkshire Consortium Trust, of which Mr Levi was a member.

At the centre of their dispute was whether or not Mr Levi was obliged to give the green light to a share transfer which would have effectively given control of the club to Mr Bates and his backers.

Mr Levi said that he believed there were good legal reasons to believe that a "call option" on the shares had lapsed, but Mr Bates accused him of blocking the transfer for no good reason, and in doing so, forcing him to abandon a rights issue in the club.

As a result of their stand-off, new shares were issued, which diluted the importance of the call option, left Mr Bates in a stronger position than before and saw Cope Industrials Holdings Ltd – a company in which Mr Levi had an interest – £1.4m out of pocket.

Sir Charles said he was "not persuaded" that it was the dispute with Mr Levi which caused the rights issue to be abandoned.

Rejecting arguments that Mr Levi had been blackmailing the club, Sir Charles said he did not accept that Mr Levi's conduct could "justifiably be said to have amounted to blackmailing Mr Bates".

The judge said that the description of Mr Levi as a shyster was "substantially unjustified."

And he said that Mr Bates had "failed to justify" allegations that Mr Levi had acted "contrary to the best interests of the club or that he deterred would-be investors".

He said there had been debate in the case as to whether the title of the second programme article, 'The Enemy Within', published on March 3 2007, would have been "understood to hark back to the use of that phrase by the Nazis to describe the Jews."

But he added: "I do not accept that the ordinary reasonable member of the club reading the programme would have understood Mr Bates' words to be anti-semitic. 'The Enemy Within' is an age-old phrase used by those in power to describe dissidents."

In awarding damages, the judge said he had taken into account the "gratuitous inclusion" in the second programme of Mr Levi's home address in Leeds and the reference, in the third, to his phone number being in the telephone book.

The judge said the letter written to the club's fans had a defence of "qualified privilege" and was not libellous.

Bates could face further legal action

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.c...uld-face-further-legal.5427618.jp

Bates could face further legal action

Leeds United chairman Ken Bates could face further legal action in the wake of the libel case that could leave him an estimated £1.5m out of pocket.
Mr Melvyn Levi, a former director of the club, was awarded £50,000 after suing Mr Bates over three articles he wrote in the club's match-day programme and a letter sent to fans.

The United chairman - who has said he is considering an appeal - was ordered to pay the estimated £1.5m legal costs of the case.

And at a Press conference called to discuss the case, Mr Levi said: "It is a victory but only the start of what could be further legal action as a direct result of the judgement.

"We will be considering over the next week or two what further action we may take to deal with matters raised by the judge."

The dispute arose after Mr Bates took over the club in 2005 from the Yorkshire Consortium, of which Mr Levi was a member.

Mr Levi spoke of the tough four years he and his family had faced during the dispute and revealed that for three months after Mr Bates has printed his home address in a match day programme, he, his wife and son walked around Leeds with personal alarms.

Mr Levi said that when he received the £50,000 damages, he would make contributions to any charitable organisations which may have lost money when Leeds United went into administration.

He said: "This has been a most difficult and testing four years for myself and my family.

"The whole episode has been hugely upsetting to me.

"I am delighted and relieved that the judgement recognises both that upset and that the action was not financially driven.

"The judgement vindicates my decision to pursue this action and to stand up for myself.

"The action had nothing to do with Leeds United, to whom I wish only success. It was brought to stop Mr Bates continuing to libel myself and my family.

"I have been and will remain a life-long Leeds United supporter. I wish the club the very best for the future and hope next year will be a promotion season."

Rolling Eyes

_________________
The advert above is nowt to do with me!

Boycott Sheffield

Garp · Allan Clarke Joined: 06 May 2008 Posts: 694

Oh Dear.....Sounds like Ken is in a bit of bother. Let's hope that Leeds United are not.

	everythingleeds.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Leeds United Chat	All times are GMT - 1 Hours Page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2