Board refuse to Name Backers

[calscot 0]

Legally we may not have the right to know, and I doubt the directors can legally disclose the information without the permission of the shareholders, even if they wanted.

 

Didn't someone go on about about company law contradicting this? Although I'm sure he also said the law is a "fact" which obviously makes no sense whatsoever.

[chilledbear 16]

To someone like me, it seems Business and Company rules can be quoted depending on the point you want to prove or disprove.

[Bluedell 5,624]

Didn't someone go on about about company law contradicting this? Although I'm sure he also said the law is a "fact" which obviously makes no sense whatsoever.

 

FS quoted something but I'm not sure how that works in practice. Let's say CW Ltd, a company registered in BVI, owns shares in Rangers. How do you you find out who the beneficial owner is? Write to the company and get no response? Write to the director who says that under BVI law he cannot reveal that information? What do you now do?

 

Having read the section that FS quoted several times, I'm still unclear as to what happens if the plc doesn't know who to contact. I just don't think that they are a catch-all but I'd need to read them in full context.

[Zappa 0]

For, just out of interest, why do the fans need to know the exact people behind these holding companies?

 

Why would fans NOT need to know the identities of the shareholders who between May & July re-shaped the Ibrox boardroom and tipped the balance of power?

[forlanssister 3,114]

FS quoted something but I'm not sure how that works in practice. Let's say CW Ltd, a company registered in BVI, owns shares in Rangers. How do you you find out who the beneficial owner is? Write to the company and get no response? Write to the director who says that under BVI law he cannot reveal that information? What do you now do?

 

Having read the section that FS quoted several times, I'm still unclear as to what happens if the plc doesn't know who to contact. I just don't think that they are a catch-all but I'd need to read them in full context.

 

Is it not the case that the holdings in question would lose their rights as shareholders until such point that they complied, namely voting rights, the right to receive a dividend and the right to participate in a rights issue?

 

Wouldn't the various anti-money laundering require that the actual beneficial owners be declared to the various authorities?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

seems like that is the case. could be a very clever stroke from murray here.

[Zappa 0]

Is it not the case that the holdings in question would lose their rights as shareholders until such point that they complied, namely voting rights, the right to receive a dividend and the right to participate in a rights issue?

 

If they lost their voting rights, then the Easdales would lose their proxy votes. That sort of power shift would be very significant.

[compo 7,030]

we will probably have green back representing either blue pitch or margarita its going to take some very rich man to buy them out and we just don't have any rich men