EGM requisition - deadline extended

[Frankie 8,684]

Even big teams make schoolboy errors; but the statement is quite clear.

 

Perhaps MCollCo will issue some form of clarification, no doubt downplaying it.

 

I think Zappa's explanation is most likely but the pressure is on McColl to clarify his intentions. You can't say no compromise one day, then compromise a few days later.

[craig 5,199]

I think I am with BH on this one.... we know that Irvine is involved now and dirty tactics will be order of the day.... so they will undoubtedly take any opportunity given them.

 

Given the Board have said they are trying to confirm holdings..... and knowing that the fans are watching this play out very publicly - if the Board have the detail they need in order to confirm shareholdings and therefore the validity of the requisitioners then they wouldnt make that statement IMHO.

 

FWIW, I also have a sour taste with Bill McMurdo calling Paul Murray "mini" - it really is schoolboy stuff and has no need to be cast that way. How about we blog, post etc in a grown up manner without the sniping and petty name-calling (even though not a big deal... it sends a message which I find a tad distasteful). I would say the same about SDM, AJ, Walter, Green and Ahmad too so it isnt a pro-Paul Murray statement.

[forlanssister 3,114]

This would appear to be a slip up by the Requisitioners.

 

Only the requisioners themselves as shareholders can sign the requisition. If McColl, Blin, Murray or any others own shares in a nominee name (an offshore company perhaps, here we go, here we go, here we go, again) then they would have to (a) prove that they are duly authorised by said entity to sign on behalf of said entity and it would have to be so stated on the requisition.

 

In other words something like:

 

JAMES MCCOLL

(for and on behalf of Monaco Holdings sa)

 

 

................................................

(signature)

 

I would be utterly shocked if Blin had slipped up in this way and it seems equally remiss of McCollCo's lawyers not to ask for such assurances and proofs before submiting the Requisition.

 

It would appear that the Board's lawyers have asked the obvious question and the Requisitioners have gone, whoopsssss; so they are now on the back foot.

 

For the avoidance of doubt I know nothing of anyone's shareholdings and Monaco Holdings sa is entirely a figment of my imagination.

 

Which begs the question, who signed the previous requisition in the name of Blue Pitch Holdings?

[bluebear54 0]

Surely, if they don't have the shares, and FS is right, they merely require a couple of sympathetic shareholders to authorise on their behalf.

Which, given circumstances, shouldn't be too difficult.

[der Berliner 3,885]

Actually ... I would have expected that before an EGM request is being granted, holdings have to be confirmed.

[craig 5,199]

If, as is being suggested, that they cant confirm some of the smaller shareholdings, those on the requisition notice should be able to have themselves removed from it - but that also means that there is enough of a %age shareholding to still push through the requisition itself.

 

However, given that McColl is the firgurehead I suspect those requisitioning will want him to be a pivotal part of the process.

[TheTinMan99 0]

Our legal bills this last year or so would choke a fucking horse.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Surely, if they don't have the shares, and FS is right, they merely require a couple of sympathetic shareholders to authorise on their behalf.

Which, given circumstances, shouldn't be too difficult.

 

Yes, but if so it's a silly error and it may be necessary to re-submit the requisition rather than just substituting names.

[TheTinMan99 0]

Yes, but if so it's a silly error and it may be necessary to re-submit the requisition rather than just substituting names.

 

Would another requisition even be required, given that the damage could be just as easily be done at the AGM? I assumed the requisition was more a statement of intent, as opposed to a necessity for boardroom change.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Would another requisition even be required, given that the damage could be just as easily be done at the AGM? I assumed the requisition was more a statement of intent, as opposed to a necessity for boardroom change.

 

You are right to the extent that all the directors have to stand for re-election and presumably other nominations could be made given due notice.

 

I think I am correct in saying that at the time the requisition was submitted there had been no indication of an imminent AGM; so the EGM may indeed be redundant.