EGM requisition delayed further

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Yes but unless you specifically request (and pay extra) any shares bought in the market would normally be held in nominee accounts which mask beneficial ownership.

 

Strange that the same wasn't publicly asked of Blue Pitch Holdings when they put in the requisition to put Easdale on the board.

 

Your knowledge never ceases to amaze me.You don't happen to do VAT and PAYE?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

It is believed that neither Jim McColl nor Paul Murray responded to the request, but a shareholder named Artemis who also backed the call for the meeting did provide proof of a stake in the club.

 

I don't believe the implication of this comment for one moment, namely that individual requests were made. Almost certainly the request would have gone to the lawyers acting for McCollCo and they took a collective decision only to provide proof of the minimum necessary shareholding to convene the meeting namely 5%.

 

This begs the question, why would McCollCo not provide proof of the other holdings?

 

Could it be that this is because (a) they are mostly held in nominee accounts and (b) they are very small, as has been suggested; and that goes to their credibility as investors. Given that we know that McColl himself is not really a significant investor, they might not want the other names to be tarred with the same brush.

[forlanssister 3,050]

One can only assume that the then existing Directors were satisfied that the requisition was in order and signed by someone with authority to act for BPH.

 

The Directors would also be aware of the institutions they sold shares to in the IPO and what vehicle they held them in and who the authorised signatories are.

[forlanssister 3,050]

I don't believe the implication of this comment for one moment, namely that individual requests were made. Almost certainly the request would have gone to the lawyers acting for McCollCo and they took a collective decision only to provide proof of the minimum necessary shareholding to convene the meeting namely 5%.

 

This begs the question, why would McCollCo not provide proof of the other holdings?

 

Could it be that this is because (a) they are mostly held in nominee accounts and (b) they are very small, as has been suggested; and that goes to their credibility as investors. Given that we know that McColl himself is not really a significant investor, they might not want the other names to be tarred with the same brush.

 

They simply were under no obligation to do anything other than provide confirmation of representing over 5% of the voting rights of the paid up shares which is exactly what they did via the Artemis holding.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

They simply were under no obligation to do anything other than provide confirmation of representing over 5% of the voting rights of the paid up shares which is exactly what they did via the Artemis holding.

 

Precisely, that's what I said in response to the sarcastic comment in the Notice

 

No authentication has been provided for the purported shareholdings of the other Requisitioners.

[Zappa 0]

There's also the possibility that McColl secretly owns a lot more shares than he wants to be publicly known.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

There's also the possibility that McColl secretly owns a lot more shares than he wants to be publicly known.

 

Possible but unlikely in my opinion. More like they are held in a Monaco company and he would find that embarrassing.

[ian1964 10,411]

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/e...entId=11703586

 

Further to the announcement on 4 September 2013, the Company confirms that whilst the Board's discussions have continued with representatives of the group who requisitioned (together the "Requisitioners") a general meeting to consider the proposed resolutions ("Requisition") detailed in the announcement on 2 August 2013 ("General Meeting"), the Board is disappointed to announce that no agreement has been reached.

 

Unless an agreement can be reached prior to 13 September 2013, as set out in the announcement on 2 September 2013, the Company will be required to send a notice to shareholders to convene the General Meeting by no later than 13 September 2013.

[Frankie 8,150]

It's all a bit of a farce to be honest.

[der Berliner 3,245]

First post on the new-styled boards :-) ...

 

Well, I assume they have to keep the LSE up to date with this, whether there is progress or not. As we have next to no info, one can hardly discern who is to blame, if anyone actually is.

 

As for being a farce ... I still reckon that similar stuff goes on with other companies too, we only had the luxury to be spared of it so far in Rangers' illustrious history.