strichener Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) You'll find that he hasn't made a valid request. The law is not "clear" on this subject. He has to a valid purpose and request must not vexatious. I beg to differ. s116 provides the basis under which the request has been made. SD have made an application to the court, as is their right, under s117. They should have submitted this within 5 working days. On the basis of the timeline provided the request should be furnished - the law is very clear on this. As I stated, SD are out of order. Perhaps you should educate yourself with the applicable law fully before making comment. Edited March 27, 2015 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) They also have a duty of care to protect their shareholders details from falling into the wrong hands. If they feel the application has been submitted on bogus or spurious grounds and they feel they cannot supply it for valid reasons they can withhold the information and let a court decide, that is what the law is for. That is what they have done. They have acted correctly in this case. Legislation and the law should be there to protect genuine shareholders not an instrument to be abused by utter cretins because they have an axe to grind. As for the law on proper purpose ... there you go. You'll find that SD have every right to challenge a request in the interest of protecting shareholder information. You appear to, either deliberately or otherwise, ignore the process laid down in statute. SD had 5 working days to apply to the court. They have now technically broken the law. You cannot pick and choose the parts of the law that you adhere to. It is very clear, even in the judgement that you have linked to, that the the time to raise the action is within 5 working days. Paragraph 10: So since 2006 these rights have been qualified. In the CA 2006, Parliament has sought to provide some protection for members against improper requests by enabling the company to obtain a court order preventing access if the request fails a "proper purpose" test. Accordingly under the CA 2006: the person who wants access to the register must make a request for access which states the purpose of the request (section 116); the company may within 5 days apply to the court for an order relieving it from any obligation to comply with the request, and the court has no option: it must make this order if it is satisfied that the request is not made for a proper purpose (section 118). Paragraph 24: Unless a company obtains an order under section 117(3) it must comply with a request for access and a criminal penalty is imposed for non-compliance by section 118. This is an important signal that Parliament attached importance to the exercise of the right of access to the share register. I agree with the Registrar that the way the statutory provisions are framed reflects a strong presumption in favour of shareholder democracy and a policy of upholding principles of corporate transparency and good corporate governance. I also agree with the Registrar that these factors point in favour of the court exercising its discretion "sparingly and with circumspection" where requests are made by shareholders to communicate with fellow shareholders. The reasons for this are obvious. If a member cannot communicate with fellow members, it puts the board into a very strong position. The corporate governance of a company is accordingly weakened. The relationship between the board and the shareholders cannot operate as it is intended to operate with the shareholders monitoring the activities of the directors. In my judgment, it would require a strong case to prevent access for these reasons. Edited March 27, 2015 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accietilleyedye Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 You appear to, either deliberately or otherwise, ignore the process laid down in statute. SD had 5 working days to apply to the court. They have now technically broken the law. You cannot pick and choose the parts of the law that you adhere to. It is very clear, even in the judgement that you have linked to, that the the time to raise the action is within 5 working days. Paragraph 10: Paragraph 24: from your quote the person who wants access to the register must make a request for access which states the purpose of the request (section 116); from the article I quoted it appears this was not present on the original request and was only furnished on the 16th of Feb which was the same day that the court order was asked for, so as you say you cannot pick and choose the laws you want to follow so if the original request didn't meet the criteria of Section 116 then the rest of your argument is spurious It breaks down to who is more likely to have followed the legal requirements properly ,Mark Dingwall or the army of lawyers that SD employ and do you think they would enter into the request if there was any chance that it was only going to end with the single shareholder getting what he wanted 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I beg to differ. s116 provides the basis under which the request has been made. SD have made an application to the court, as is their right, under s117. They should have submitted this within 5 working days. On the basis of the timeline provided the request should be furnished - the law is very clear on this. As I stated, SD are out of order. Perhaps you should educate yourself with the applicable law fully before making comment. If he was so concerned with ZHC why not buy one share in all the companies who use them and request the same info. Would you want doorstepped by some of the individuals who support this franchise ? I hate ZHC but this is someone whose actions could incite others to break the law and potentially hurt r distress others. It's hardly their fault Sevco pissed £70million away and needed money MA is an opportunist capitalist, he offered money that no one else would loan them given they are a pheonix clumpany who in less than 3 years in existence spent £70 million ( can we just reiterate that). If Sevco supporters want to blame anyone look in the mirror they didn't ask the right questions of the likes of Chucky Green as to why they needed loans why the infrastructure was ignored, all the others who have came since haven't fixed the problems and it leads to one conclusion that in its present form of believing in Minty's Moonbeams they are fecked no matter who is in control. If Ashley took advantage of them he is at least consistent and if he wasn't able to make money from them they would go the same way as USC. The more pertinent question, yet again if you ignore you have problems you won't find solutions. Why if MA is so devisive a figure then pay him off or is it despite the bluster of the good guys the thing that Sevco needs most is £ and on the present evidence it seems in short supply. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creased Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 M 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I might buy a share in the rangers and ask for a list of all shareholders so I can send them some shite in the post. Better than the bullets Rangers fans are known to send. Dingwall couldn't be thinking...... Nah. He wouldn't. .... would he? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Where is HBQC when you need him. Densboy cannae fill his wig and gown. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Paul Murray: "As Rangers supporters all of us really value the traditions, standards of behaviour and the values that we've had over 143 years." It's amazing how often they are mentioning the 143 year thing at every turn. Almost as if they're just a tad insecure about it... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Tbf Densboy does a have a wee bit of a point. The last 4 or 5 years of constant negative headlines surrounding has obviously played a part in keeping some fans away, i'd guess that the awful style of play has also played a part too. The club have a lot of work to do if they are going to tempt everyone back. ...and i was wrong as i thought that the fans would be back once the board was ousted. Densboys KDS post was still a lot of mince and he does seem to have an issue when it comes to admitting he was wrong ... the blogs/posts he c&p'd were wrong 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 or rubbing it in. Aye, I'm sure that's it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted March 27, 2015 Author Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) I think Murray is being misquoted and he simply couldn't remember if their history is 1, 4, or 3 years. Edited March 27, 2015 by pozbaird 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete's Frontier Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 It's amazing how often they are mentioning the 143 year thing at every turn. Almost as if they're just a tad insecure about it... 143, what about 276: the number of unsatisfied creditors. They don't pay them because Rangers died in 2012. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) from your quote from the article I quoted it appears this was not present on the original request and was only furnished on the 16th of Feb which was the same day that the court order was asked for, so as you say you cannot pick and choose the laws you want to follow so if the original request didn't meet the criteria of Section 116 then the rest of your argument is spurious It breaks down to who is more likely to have followed the legal requirements properly ,Mark Dingwall or the army of lawyers that SD employ and do you think they would enter into the request if there was any chance that it was only going to end with the single shareholder getting what he wanted If the original request did not meet the requirements of s116 then the company should have rejected the request outright. The fact that the secretary sought further details on the request provides legitimacy to the original application and all enquiries as to the proper purpose are still required to be performed within the prescribed 5 days. The ICSA guidelines on the process are probably the easiest to understand. For the avoidance of doubt, in the absence of any evidence that the purpose is not as stated, the company is entitled to rely on the information provided. Where any doubt exists as to whether a purpose is proper, or indeed whether the person requesting the information (whether by way of inspection or a copy of the register) will use it for the purpose specified (which might be a ‘proper’ purpose), companies should undertake such further enquiries as are reasonably possible within the time available. It should be made clear to the person requesting the information that failure to provide adequate responses within the remainder of the five days might trigger an application to court because there is no flexibility under s117. Edited March 27, 2015 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accietilleyedye Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 If the original request did not meet the requirements of s116 then the company should have rejected the request outright. The fact that the secretary sought further details on the request provides legitimacy to the original application and all enquiries as to the proper purpose are still required to be performed within the prescribed 5 days. The ICSA guidelines on the process are probably the easiest to understand. We are not privy to all that has taken place, only one side of the story making the timeline muddy at best, one can only assume that the hard and fast 5 day rules must not have been clearly broken otherwise the court would have thrown the petition out on its ear , surely 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I never stated it was true at any point ... simply copied a rumour and stated where it was found. It was clear there was no official source. If it's fact, I'll clearly state it and leave you in no doubt. It's also clear that your "new board" has clearly issued a "call to arms" to fill seats and inject cash in the coffers. Your support has made a lot of noise regarding the reason for staying away being mainly down to the old regime. You'd expect around 40 - 45k for a home game if that was the case? Its never your fault, is it? But you'll continue to post rubbish from celticminded blogs and websites regardless because you struggle to think for yourself. Well yes, they'll want as many fans as they can get.... It looks I was wrong in earlier posts, hands held up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle_do_nicely Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 He has 30 days to bring in his own NOMAD..The one that he has gad lined up ever since he made it publuc that one of the first pieces of business after he got control would be to get WHI out. One more sleep Where's this NOMAD that King has had lined up, then? It's almost like Dave King is dishonest. If only someone had warned you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 You always know when densboy has screwed up with his c and p's and forgets what he actually posted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Is Mark Dingwall's middle name Guar? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Is Mark Dingwall's middle name Guar? Clever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Former Rangers chief executive Charles Green not welcome at Ibrox RANGERS interim chairman Paul Murray has slammed the door firmly shut on Charles Green returning to Ibrox. By Scott Burns PUBLISHED: 00:01, Fri, Mar 27, 2015 Willie Vass Charles Green has been warned by the Rangers board The outspoken former chief executive, who resigned over a racial slur, had said he wanted to go back to the Govan giants, even though the club had spiralled into chaos since he took it out of administration four years ago. 0 Quote Link to comment 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.