The current issue is less KPMG's ratification of the vote (which does appear to have actually passed the required threshhold, though the weekend recount is a bit weird), but rather their rejection of any claim that the Caribbean enties should have been placed in a separate class for voting purposes due to their ties to Bates. It doesn't help that KPMG's story on that appears to keep changing. At first, they said that they had no reason to believe the lenders were connected to Bates, then that they had unspecified assurances that they were not, then that they had statements from the firms and Bates that they were not connected.
Now, a week or so after the vote, it comes out that there is an explicit reference in last year's financials (which KPMG has to have read) noting a connection between Bates and at least one of the offshore lenders. So the story now is that such a connection existed but has since been dissolved, though no one seems interested in producing evidence of such a dissolution or in discussing its terms.
To me, the fact that this reference existed in the financials makes KPMG's initial position completely untenable, and should be seen as establishing a duty on their part to investigate the matter much more thoroughly than it appears that they did.
I imagine that the Revenue will be taking a similar position should they take this to court.
I'm sure the facts have not been reported completely or accurately (they pretty much never are in football finance stories), but I can't help but think that KPMG are more than a bit concerned about how this is going.
|