Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
The Shareholders agreement(s) 15:50 - Jul 27 with 1630 viewsNeathJack

Am I right in saying this is version 1

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/_G1VnXbt_sODc6Z

And this is version 2, which appears to be unsigned by the Trust.

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/MHogB2AawWIwdRf
0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 16:06 - Jul 27 with 1285 viewsUxbridge

The links don't work. However I'm going to guess these link to the Articles rather than the SHA. Totally different documents.

Blog: Whose money is it anyway?

0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 16:18 - Jul 27 with 1254 viewsNeathJack

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 16:06 - Jul 27 by Uxbridge

The links don't work. However I'm going to guess these link to the Articles rather than the SHA. Totally different documents.


They are indeed. The one dated 21st July 2016 is signed by everyone other than the Trust.
0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 16:20 - Jul 27 with 1246 viewsUxbridge

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 16:18 - Jul 27 by NeathJack

They are indeed. The one dated 21st July 2016 is signed by everyone other than the Trust.


Would have needed to see them, or be informed of them, beforehand. This was the whole issue raised in October regarding civil vs criminal.

Either way, it's not the SHA.

Blog: Whose money is it anyway?

0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 16:38 - Jul 27 with 1208 viewsNookiejack

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 16:18 - Jul 27 by NeathJack

They are indeed. The one dated 21st July 2016 is signed by everyone other than the Trust.


Huw Jenkins as chairman of the Board - should have ensured that all shareholders were notified that a vote was proceeding to change the articles. 75% of votes were needed to change the articles.

Given the change in articles were signed by all other shareholders (ahead of the sale) except the Trust - I assume Huw Jenkins did not notify the Trust - unless someone from the Trust corrects my assumption.
0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 16:42 - Jul 27 with 1203 viewsDarran

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 16:20 - Jul 27 by Uxbridge

Would have needed to see them, or be informed of them, beforehand. This was the whole issue raised in October regarding civil vs criminal.

Either way, it's not the SHA.


As I've said several times I find it staggering that someone in charge of a multi million pound business can act in this way and it's not criminal.

The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Poll: Who’s got the most experts

1
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 16:43 - Jul 27 with 1199 viewsDarran

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 16:42 - Jul 27 by Darran

As I've said several times I find it staggering that someone in charge of a multi million pound business can act in this way and it's not criminal.


Especially when it was done to trouser millions of pounds.

Honestly I'm truly baffled by it.

The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Poll: Who’s got the most experts

2
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 16:52 - Jul 27 with 1171 viewsmonmouth

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 16:43 - Jul 27 by Darran

Especially when it was done to trouser millions of pounds.

Honestly I'm truly baffled by it.


Sounds like another question for Dai?

Poll: TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote

0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 16:59 - Jul 27 with 1145 viewsDarran

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 16:52 - Jul 27 by monmouth

Sounds like another question for Dai?


No idea who it's a question for but I'm surely not on my own in thinking that the first time legal action was mentioned the image of Jenkins in a court of law didn't spring to mind.

Seriously I had and have no problem with them selling their shares after they put the money in in the beginning but I can't get my head around the fact that the chairman of a multi million pound company could act in such a way as to push the deal through.

Perhaps I'm being naive here but I don't believe for one minute I'm the only one absolutely staggered by it.

The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Poll: Who’s got the most experts

1
Login to get fewer ads

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 17:00 - Jul 27 with 1138 viewsNookiejack

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 16:52 - Jul 27 by monmouth

Sounds like another question for Dai?


It was all done ahead of the sale as well?

Did the Yanks ask for the articles to be changed ahead of the sale?

Did they ask whether the Trust were being consulted?
0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 17:05 - Jul 27 with 1117 viewsUxbridge

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 16:52 - Jul 27 by monmouth

Sounds like another question for Dai?


It's been answered plenty of times mun. I know October was a long time ago though. Not informing the Trust was criminal but it doesn't invalidate them. They had the numbers.

Slap on the wrist. Fine maybe. Bit of embarrassment. Anyone thinking it'll end up with Jenkins being carted off in a wagon will be disappointed I'm afraid.

Law is an ass.

Blog: Whose money is it anyway?

0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 17:07 - Jul 27 with 1099 viewsNookiejack

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 17:05 - Jul 27 by Uxbridge

It's been answered plenty of times mun. I know October was a long time ago though. Not informing the Trust was criminal but it doesn't invalidate them. They had the numbers.

Slap on the wrist. Fine maybe. Bit of embarrassment. Anyone thinking it'll end up with Jenkins being carted off in a wagon will be disappointed I'm afraid.

Law is an ass.


Yes but why not go through slap of the wrist process?
0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 17:09 - Jul 27 with 1089 viewsNookiejack

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 17:07 - Jul 27 by Nookiejack

Yes but why not go through slap of the wrist process?


Would that be a separate action to the litigation against the Yanks?
0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 17:15 - Jul 27 with 1069 viewsUxbridge

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 17:07 - Jul 27 by Nookiejack

Yes but why not go through slap of the wrist process?


To what end? There's no money in it. A bit of public embarrassment? Naming and shaming amounted to the same thing. It'd result in some lawyers cashing in for a bit.

Blog: Whose money is it anyway?

0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 17:17 - Jul 27 with 1054 viewsNookiejack

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 17:09 - Jul 27 by Nookiejack

Would that be a separate action to the litigation against the Yanks?


Other things might come out which would strengthen the Trust's case against the Yanks?

QC could explore the relationship between Huw Jenkins and the Yanks before the sale?

The Yanks presumably will have asked him to change the articles?
0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 17:27 - Jul 27 with 1022 viewsThursday

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 17:15 - Jul 27 by Uxbridge

To what end? There's no money in it. A bit of public embarrassment? Naming and shaming amounted to the same thing. It'd result in some lawyers cashing in for a bit.


Accountability, and not setting that kind of precedent.
0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 18:02 - Jul 27 with 981 viewstomdickharry

The company must send shareholders, directors (and any auditors) a notice in writing, stating the date, place and time of the meeting, and setting out the rights of shareholders to appoint proxies - ie to appoint someone to go along to the shareholders' meeting in their place.

The notice period to be given is 14 days, although this may be increased by the articles of association. However, if the holders of shares representing 90% of the nominal value of the company's voting shares (or any higher percentage specified in the articles, to a maximum of 95%) agree, the meeting can be held at shorter notice.

The notice can be given to a shareholder electronically, including by making it available on a website, provided the company and the shareholder agree it can, and the other conditions in the Companies Act 2006 are met.
0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 18:07 - Jul 27 with 966 viewsNookiejack

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 18:02 - Jul 27 by tomdickharry

The company must send shareholders, directors (and any auditors) a notice in writing, stating the date, place and time of the meeting, and setting out the rights of shareholders to appoint proxies - ie to appoint someone to go along to the shareholders' meeting in their place.

The notice period to be given is 14 days, although this may be increased by the articles of association. However, if the holders of shares representing 90% of the nominal value of the company's voting shares (or any higher percentage specified in the articles, to a maximum of 95%) agree, the meeting can be held at shorter notice.

The notice can be given to a shareholder electronically, including by making it available on a website, provided the company and the shareholder agree it can, and the other conditions in the Companies Act 2006 are met.


Interesting with the Trust having 21% - Huw Jenkins as chairman would presumably have had to give the Trust at least 14 days notice?
0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 18:33 - Jul 27 with 937 viewstomdickharry

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 18:07 - Jul 27 by Nookiejack

Interesting with the Trust having 21% - Huw Jenkins as chairman would presumably have had to give the Trust at least 14 days notice?


No, not Mr Jenkins,the Company.
The intriguing question which needs to be answered is why the Trust were not served notice of the meeting.
0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 18:46 - Jul 27 with 923 viewsNookiejack

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 18:33 - Jul 27 by tomdickharry

No, not Mr Jenkins,the Company.
The intriguing question which needs to be answered is why the Trust were not served notice of the meeting.


I thought the chairman of the company had to ensure shareholders were given notice?

The other interesting thing is the articles were changed just before the sale.

What would have happened if notice had been served 14 days before the sale to the Trust?

Could they then launched a legal action at that point for unfair prejudice?

Maybe have lodged a court injunction?
0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 18:47 - Jul 27 with 921 viewsNeathJack

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 17:15 - Jul 27 by Uxbridge

To what end? There's no money in it. A bit of public embarrassment? Naming and shaming amounted to the same thing. It'd result in some lawyers cashing in for a bit.


To what end?

The humiliation of him being dragged through the courts which would highlight far more than previously what happened, accountability for his actions and the fact that quite simply it is the right thing to do.

He's in his office at the Liberty, say on his huge windfall laughing at us mun.

I couldn't give a rats backside if it cost a couple of thousand of the trusts fortune. It needs to be done.

I assume from what your saying though a decision has been made not to pursue this?
0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 18:50 - Jul 27 with 910 viewsShaky

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 18:47 - Jul 27 by NeathJack

To what end?

The humiliation of him being dragged through the courts which would highlight far more than previously what happened, accountability for his actions and the fact that quite simply it is the right thing to do.

He's in his office at the Liberty, say on his huge windfall laughing at us mun.

I couldn't give a rats backside if it cost a couple of thousand of the trusts fortune. It needs to be done.

I assume from what your saying though a decision has been made not to pursue this?


FWIW, I am not convinced that even a technical offence has been commited.

And certainly if it were proved to have been an offence, it would result in a relatively small fine of a few thousand pounds.

That is peanuts in the greater scheme of things, and frankly a needless distraction; there should be much bigger fish to fry!

Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll: Greatest PS Troll Hunter of all time

0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 18:54 - Jul 27 with 903 viewsNeathJack

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 18:50 - Jul 27 by Shaky

FWIW, I am not convinced that even a technical offence has been commited.

And certainly if it were proved to have been an offence, it would result in a relatively small fine of a few thousand pounds.

That is peanuts in the greater scheme of things, and frankly a needless distraction; there should be much bigger fish to fry!


I'm quite happy to fry this fish too given the fact it would likely result in negative publicity for the big nosed ****.
1
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 19:36 - Jul 27 with 836 viewstomdickharry

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 18:50 - Jul 27 by Shaky

FWIW, I am not convinced that even a technical offence has been commited.

And certainly if it were proved to have been an offence, it would result in a relatively small fine of a few thousand pounds.

That is peanuts in the greater scheme of things, and frankly a needless distraction; there should be much bigger fish to fry!


The company must send shareholders,
0
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 20:15 - Jul 27 with 786 viewswaynekerr55

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 17:05 - Jul 27 by Uxbridge

It's been answered plenty of times mun. I know October was a long time ago though. Not informing the Trust was criminal but it doesn't invalidate them. They had the numbers.

Slap on the wrist. Fine maybe. Bit of embarrassment. Anyone thinking it'll end up with Jenkins being carted off in a wagon will be disappointed I'm afraid.

Law is an ass.


They'd need a low loader to fit his conk on it...

How many of you know what DP stands for?
Poll: POTY 2019
Blog: Too many things for a title, but stop with the xenophobia accusations!

-1
The Shareholders agreement(s) on 10:51 - Jul 28 with 686 viewsMeraki

The Shareholders agreement(s) on 17:15 - Jul 27 by Uxbridge

To what end? There's no money in it. A bit of public embarrassment? Naming and shaming amounted to the same thing. It'd result in some lawyers cashing in for a bit.


Jesus Christ.
0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024