| News |

U.K. Judge Rules That Tom Hicks Can't Bring $1.6-Bil Liverpool FC Claim to Court in Dallas

Keep Dallas Observer Free
I Support
  • Local
  • Community
  • Journalism
  • logo

Support the independent voice of Dallas and help keep the future of Dallas Observer free.

As we noted last week, attorneys representing Tom Hicks in the U.K. were in court trying to get a judge there to overturn his ruling that keeps Hicks from suing in the U.S. over last October's sale of Liverpool FC to New England Sports Ventures. Hicks and his Dallas legal team, of course, temporarily stopped the sale by rushing to the George Allen and branded the October sale "an epic swindle" and have threatened ever since to sue for some $1.6 billion in damages in a Dallas courtroom. But they could only do so if the judge tore down his earlier roadblock.

This morning, the judge handed down his decision: If Hicks wants to sue, says Mr. Justice Floyd, he and George Gillett, with whom Hicks owned the soccer club, will have to do so in England. Wrote Floyd, "I am satisfied that the former owners have not shown any good reason why the injunction should be discharged." The judge, however, did make one slight alteration to his original order: As The Telegraph notes, Hicks can now "sue for disclosure of documents and information relating to the sale of the club in the US, but only if he gives the defendants and UK courts seven-days notice of any writ. The judge also gave [former Liverpool chairman Martin] Broughton and NESV permission to seek permanent protection against any damages claim from Hicks, technically known as 'negative declaratory relief.'"

Liverpool FC's present owners, of course, are delighted by the ruling and say in a statement issued today they "will continue to take all steps necessary to defend vigorously any litigation threatened or commenced by the Club's former owners." Hicks' local PR reps say he has no comment on the subject, and messages have been left with Tom Melsheimer at Fish & Richardson to see what he plans to do next

Update at 9:47 a.m: Melsheimer responds, via e-mail:

We are studying the ruling and looking at our options. Note that the ruling was, as expected, wholly procedural and not a decision on the merits of any claim. I can't say much more than that at this point.

Keep the Dallas Observer Free... Since we started the Dallas Observer, it has been defined as the free, independent voice of Dallas, and we would like to keep it that way. Offering our readers free access to incisive coverage of local news, food and culture. Producing stories on everything from political scandals to the hottest new bands, with gutsy reporting, stylish writing, and staffers who've won everything from the Society of Professional Journalists' Sigma Delta Chi feature-writing award to the Casey Medal for Meritorious Journalism. But with local journalism's existence under siege and advertising revenue setbacks having a larger impact, it is important now more than ever for us to rally support behind funding our local journalism. You can help by participating in our "I Support" membership program, allowing us to keep covering Dallas with no paywalls.

We use cookies to collect and analyze information on site performance and usage, and to enhance and customize content and advertisements. By clicking 'X' or continuing to use the site, you agree to allow cookies to be placed. To find out more, visit our cookies policy and our privacy policy.


Join the Observer community and help support independent local journalism in Dallas.


Join the Observer community and help support independent local journalism in Dallas.