Hey I love Picto's comment about who is being scammed. 'It cant be the shareholders as we bought our shares from other sharholders so the company doesn't have our money' - yes, when you lose all your money Picto you haven't been scammed..
Bloodaxe, I expect the posters only use one thought at a time so you can keep up with them.
agree with salmonsandwich money counts, and wrn aint got any!
The Hotel Corporation plc ("HCP" or the "Company") Proposed new Investing Policy Notice of Extraordinary General Meeting Dear Shareholder, Ref- Mr Yeoman and Mr Jackson's Requisition I am writing on behalf of myself and Mr Jackson, who together have requisitioned a General Meeting of your Company. It is our belief that a change in the board of your company is now necessary and will give all shareholders the opportunity to create value. During the last year I have put forward several suggestions via the board and approached Shore Capital (under instruction from the board) for their support. However, the board have seemingly been unable to move forward, or indeed consult its wider shareholder base on our ideas, without the specific support of its stakeholder, Shore Capital. This support was evidently not forthcoming. As you are now aware, shareholders have now been offered an alternative opportunity; to invest in a new fund structure, advised by Puma Investments, a member of the Shore Capital Group. Aside from noting that the Board seems only prepared to recommend to shareholders a new direction for the Company, if it involves Shore Capital, shareholders should also recognise that the previous Puma vehicle in which HCP shareholders held their investment, resulted in a large loss of capital for shareholders, but a large return for its promoters, Puma. [link] Subject to the passing of Resolution 1, the Company will enter into a property investment advisory agreement with Puma Investment Management Limited. Puma Investments is a subsidiary of the Shore Capital group of companies. -Is this a conflict of interest? -Are the proposed Puma fees fair and reasonable? -Should Shore Capital be voting on this at all? It is my belief that the recently suggested investing policy, resolution 1. put forward by your board, is as a result of the pressure felt by the board after the requisition of the GM and is not a well planned strategy for your company. Shareholders must now vote on three resolutions:- 1. To adopt the new investment plan into another Puma structure (owned by Shore Capital) 2. Appoint Marcus Yeoman as a director. 3. Remove Derek Short as a director of your company. We have received a number of supportive e mails which in conjunction with our own holdings represents approximately 25%, this group have indicated that they wish to vote for change. In order to do this they will vote in the following way:- 1. Against the resolution 2. For the resolution 3. For the resolution I would urge all shareholders to vote at this time in a way that they feel will preserve value and give your company the best prospects moving forward. It is important that if shareholders hold shares in a nominee company and have not received their proxy card, they should contact their broker or advisor and instruct them on the way they wish to vote, all votes must be received before 11am on the 14th Sept. 2015. Yours faithfully Marcus Yeoman Shareholder Contact: [email protected]
Nice post TX2, to get all those names in. Lucky WRN shareholders havoing them fighting their corner in court!!
So Craig W 's been arrested, this is good news for Wrn's claim, and the share price will rocket, on WRN holder logic
what a bunch of idiotsyou lot are, stuka shows you have so little in your heads and lives, to vent so much trash on him
hopefully craig whyte and aidan earley will be character witnesses for wrn in any court proceedings
what has tw got to do with the prospects for wrn, is he a director???
Williams 142 I like the latin is a dead tongue bit, but I can lend you one of my brain cells, so yours is not lonely