forlanssister 3,050 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Should make a special resolution easier to pass and I imagine would bar them from taking part in any open offer or rights issue. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Should make a special resolution easier to pass and I imagine would bar them from taking part in any open offer or rights issue. Perhaps expedite access to another exchange as well? Can't see them taking it lying down though... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Perhaps expedite access to another exchange as well? Can't see them taking it lying down though... Not exactkly sure what they can do about it though 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,140 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 It would be nice to know who these shareholders are 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7 5,169 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) The Explanatory Note to the section: "Section 793: Notice by company requiring information about interests in its shares 1113.This section re-enacts section 212(1) to (4) of the 1985 Act. It allows a public company to issue a notice requiring a person it knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, has an interest in its shares (or to have had an interest in the previous three years) to confirm or deny the fact, and, if the former, to disclose certain information about the interest, including information about any other person with an interest in the shares. 1114.Subsections (3) and (4) enable the company to require details to be given of a person’s past or present interests and to provide details of any other interest subsisting in the shares of which he is aware. This provision allows the company to pursue information through a chain of nominees by requiring each in the chain to disclose the person for whom they are acting. Under subsection (6), where the addressee’s interest is a past one, a company can ask for information concerning any person by whom the interest was acquired immediately subsequent to their interest. Particulars may also be required of any share acquisition agreements, or any agreement or arrangement as to how the rights attaching to those shares should be exercised (sections 824 and 825). 1115.This section serves a different purpose to the automatic disclosure obligations currently contained in sections 198 to 211 of Part 6 of the 1985 Act. It enables companies to discover the identity of those with voting rights (direct or indirect) that fall below the thresholds for automatic disclosure, and it also enables companies (and members of the company) to ascertain the underlying beneficial owners of shares. 1116.The notice is not required to be in hard copy (see the general provisions on sending or supplying documents or information in Part 37 of the Bill). Notices, and responses thereto, may be given in electronic form. A response must be given in a reasonable time. What is reasonable has not been defined so as to allow flexibility according to the circumstances, but if the time given is not reasonable, the company will not have served a valid notice." fs or BD will explain the explanatory note. Edited July 29, 2015 by Scott7 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 RANGERS have frozen out a bunch of mystery investors after they refused to tell the club who owns their shares. Chairman Dave King has neutered 10.4 per cent of the club’s shareholding, owned by four parties as part of the umbrella group Beaufort Nominees. In total, Beaufort Nominees owned 21 per cent of the club and their proxies were controlled by Sandy Easdale, who controlled an additional five per cent of his own stock. Beaufort Nominees were the group who consistently voted with Charles Green and the previous board against the changes many Rangers fans wanted before King eventually swept to power in March. The four groups who have refused to give details of their shareholders are Blue Pitch Holdings, who own four million shares, ATP Investments (2.6 million shares), Norne Astalt (1.2 million) and Putney Holdings (700,000). The name of the mysterious Margarita Holdings is not listed on the current Rangers share issue, but it’s believed they hold the same number of shares, 2.6 million, as ATP Investments. It is a criminal offence in the UK to supply false information to companies on the names of individuals who own shares in them. Until the four groups listed provide information on who owns the Rangers shares, their stock is ultimately worthless. Their shareholdings now carry no voting rights, cannot be traded and shareholders will not receive any dividends that may fall due. The Rangers board sought to confirm the identity of the shareholders shortly after taking control four months ago, but have been thwarted in their attempts. The move was part of the transparency promised by King and although the four groups will not be allowed to participate in any future share offering, it was not the reason behind the clarification sought. Rangers have sent a notice to all shareholders, including the four parties, informing they have not responded to the requests for information on the ownership of their holdings and the sanctions now imposed. A Rangers spokesman said: “It was always the intention of the board to discover who really owns these shares. These four parties have not responded to initial requests for information or to the latest direction notices.” http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/tell-who-you-are-ibrox-6158553#ICID=sharebar_twitter 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Bear 0 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Not exactkly sure what they can do about it though They could comply. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 They could comply. That wasn't the reasoning we were thinking off , however you are totally correct , very unlikely but could happen 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Greene, Ahmed, Ashley...Whyte ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Bear 0 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 That wasn't the reasoning we were thinking off , however you are totally correct , very unlikely but could happen Basically, unless they can successfully challenge the legality of the decision, their shares are essentially worthless until they do comply. 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.