crucible 0 Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 I doubt anyone will be losing voting rights, nominees work in every other case no one is going to be changing protocol for us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 nomines or not company law is company law. nor would be the first nominees to lose voting rights. this may help you grasp the situation http://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/t2s/progress/pdf/subtrans/st_analysis_regimes.pdf 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dummiesoot Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 Am I missing something here? I take no sides on this matter before anyone starts but paul murray et al looking to go to court. Causing us to spend more money they claim we do not have? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 Am I missing something here? I take no sides on this matter before anyone starts but paul murray et al looking to go to court. Causing us to spend more money they claim we do not have? well the board can stop it like they could last time. certainly better value for money than lets say the 300k we paid out to costs green ran up before buying us finding investors. or mathers pay off. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crucible 0 Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 There is nothing to grasp not even any names that the requisitioners claimed they had, I suspect they are tilting at windmills a very poor show all round by them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 just because you don't understand doesn't mean their is nothing to understand. if 10% of shareholders want to know then they must be told. if they aren't then their are consequences. which include the rather delicious loss of voting rights 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crucible 0 Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 I understand they do not have something they claimed they did,names. I am always wary of people who tell me what can only be described as an untruth. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 I understand they do not have something they claimed they did,names. I am always wary of people who tell me what can only be described as an untruth. Nice one. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 I understand they do not have something they claimed they did,names. I am always wary of people who tell me what can only be described as an untruth. we both know they told us they were about to be given the names. rather suspiciously they weren't given them. makes you wonder why. still whyte or whoever it is can't hide for ever. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crucible 0 Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 They claimed the names were being scrutinised by McColl's lawyers, we now know that is untrue even if you do not. 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.