Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A judge today declined to give Rangers' administrators legal guidance on their bid to breach a £24.4 million season ticket deal.
Lord Hodge said he had not been given sufficient legal information to allow him to make a ruling on the club's contract with investment firm Ticketus.
The judge also declined to give Ticketus preferential treatment as creditors.
The administrators, Duff and Phelps, went to the Court of Session in Edinburgh last week to seek legal directions on whether they could tear up the Ibrox club's agreement with Ticketus.
The investment firm's eight-figure cash injection allowed Craig Whyte to pay off the club's bank debt and complete his takeover in May last year.
Ticketus insists it has a legally binding agreement to receive £27 million back, thought to be over three years.
However, the administrators argued that the deal could put off potential investors in the club and they sought a court decision on the status of the agreement.
Judge Lord Hodge, who heard the arguments over several days, is expected to issue a full written judgment on his findings.
A summary of his decision, issued today, said he "declined to give a direction" because "he considered that the court had not been given sufficient information to allow it to make such a ruling".
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments