Calgacus 8 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 An unnamed shareholder with decades of experience in fund management? That's the equivalent of robbing a bank with a see through balaclava, is it not? It's one of the worrying things about our situation - there are a lot of investment funds involved in us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 3,776 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 There is not really any irony involved as being unnamed in a newspaper article isn't covered by the Companies Act 2006. That aside, I'm pretty sure that we all have a fair idea of who this is. Why is this still being talked about? Should it not have been dealt with some time ago? For me this just suggests tedious spin from both sides. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.