McMurdo claiming EGM avoidance deal 'likely'

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Perhaps, they are in with Artemis or are representing other investors.

 

Artemis do invest on behalf of other institutions e.g. pension funds etc, but unlikely they would do so on behalf of individuals, they are too big to do that.

 

It is more likely that they bought the shares and have spread them across some of their retail or institutional funds; it wouldn't be that difficult to find that out but I don't think it's all that important.

 

The requestition (sic) should be in whatever name they hold the shares. It's a basic premise that any first year lawyer would get right. I can't believe that they got something as basic as that wrong.

 

Doesn't seem to be any other obvious explanation though and despite the fact that they don't need to prove any more than Artemis' 5%, it might be why they have been reticent about their own holdings (if any).

[BrahimHemdani 1]

So having not read the requisition

 

Should it say who or what they're representing or acting for?

 

Yes it should.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

And does it?

 

No it doesn't.

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

To be honest that seems a very basic error to make. It really seems like amateur hour just now

[Zappa 0]

To be honest that seems a very basic error to make. It really seems like amateur hour just now

 

Assuming there has been a mistake, then it's really the lawyer's fault, so Kenneth Shand of MacLay Murray & Spens LLP in Glasgow won't have done his or his company's reputation much good.

[craig 5,199]

Because if they all stick together, none of them could then be voted off presumably.

 

But what climb down this would be for McCollCo.

 

That would surely depend on the shareholding they own and what their terms of office are (1 yr, 2 yr, 3 yr rolling etc) ?

[craig 5,199]

Shut it ya fuds

 

I laughed.....

[TheTinMan99 0]

I quite enjoy the civil nature of this site, compared to others, but if ever a word was invented for Murdo, then "fud" would be it.

[Anchorman 0]

Bluedell

I would side with Frankie on this, sook sook.

I had no idea what a "fud" was until I looked it up just now:

I don't think there is any need for that either, I am sure that the vast majority of people on this site are more than articulate enough to make telling points without resorting to that kind of language.

 

BH - Please tell me you didn't actually have to Google 'fud'? If you did you are a dobber! :flipa:

[amms 0]

I'm a big supporter of swearing, sometimes nothing communicates better what you're trying to express. I love that BH had to look up 'fud', i'd loved to have walked in on him when those Google results returned!

Having visited RangersMedia the other day for the first time in a long time I can see why Frankie is keen to keep standards high here. Fud seemed fairly benign to me, liar for example is a far more loaded word, but fair enough, Frankie makes the rules, i'm happy to go along with them. Can we still hurl insults by pm though...!