The Board minutes should be requested in addition to a copy of any independent valuations received by the Board. Shareholder consent should have been sought for the sale and voluntary liquidation of the various companies (I think 75% approval is the requirement for a voluntary liquidation) - albeit would need to check what voting rights the preference shareholders were entitled to.
I’m confused why people are outraged. They invested in shared with projected returns. Not guaranteed returns. The prospectus highlighted an amazing projected return, well it would wouldn’t it! They even took out misleading ads, tell tale signs there. And low and behold the returns weren’t as high as projected.Preference shareholders had no voting rights. Clearly stated in prospectus.
I’m confused why people are outraged. They invested in shared with projected returns. Not guaranteed returns. The prospectus highlighted an amazing projected return, well it would wouldn’t it! They even took out misleading ads, tell tale signs there. And low and behold the returns weren’t as high as projected.
I think it’s more about governance/conflicts of interest than anyone expecting a guaranteed returnsI’m confused why people are outraged. They invested in shared with projected returns. Not guaranteed returns. The prospectus highlighted an amazing projected return, well it would wouldn’t it! They even took out misleading ads, tell tale signs there. And low and behold the returns weren’t as high as projected.
The Board minutes should be requested in addition to a copy of any independent valuations received by the Board. Shareholder consent should have been sought for the sale and voluntary liquidation of the various companies (I think 75% approval is the requirement for a voluntary liquidation) - albeit would need to check what voting rights the preference shareholders were entitled to.
And for all that none of you have pointed out what was done incorrectly. Also where were you all for the last 20 years. About governance or conflicts of interest.I think it’s more about governance/conflicts of interest than anyone expecting a guaranteed returns
If it’s the second time why did you invest in this? How did it work out the last time. AAM readers might learn from it. I take all this with a large pince of salt after I saw the fiasco with Eircom when the whole country lost the plot.I have engaged a QFA Investment specialist to prepair a report with the intention of issuing proceedings against Veron and Deloitt,
Is anyone interested in joining the case, I will be taking out an advertisement in the Times to gather up investors,
This is not the first time this has happened to me
my e mail address is
larsheeran@gmail.com
One genuflects at the alter of the righteous....from my read of the threads above people are not placing blame but would like some very simple questions answered.....please forgive them!If it’s the second time why did you invest in this? How did it work out the last time. AAM readers might learn from it. I take all this with a large pince of salt after I saw the fiasco with Eircom when the whole country lost the plot.
No one is pointing any blame (yet). For the last 20 years all the messages were quiet sanguine (amen!)And for all that none of you have pointed out what was done incorrectly. Also where were you all for the last 20 years. About governance or conflicts of interest.
Why now, when the projected returns didn’t materialise.
I’ve only read page one of this thread, poster Rainyday at post 3 was asking questions back in 2002, he continued in other posts and then another poster at post 12 joined in asking questions. From those posts alone it was raising questions to me about his sound an investment it was. As it happens it was sound. People are getting their money back, plus interest. Not bad in these days of negative interest.One genuflects at the alter of the righteous....from my read of the threads above people are not placing blame but would like some very simple questions answered.....please forgive them!
Deloitt have a case to answer, They have a responsibility to the SHAREHOLDERS, not the DirectorsPreference shareholders had no voting rights. Clearly stated in prospectus.
I have engaged a QFA Investment specialist to prepair a report with the intention of issuing proceedings against Veron and Deloitt,
Is anyone interested in joining the case, I will be taking out an advertisement in the Times to gather up investors,
This is not the first time this has happened to me
my e mail address is
larsheeran@gmail.com
[/QUOTE
Lar I've just emailed you with my contact information. I had 4 shares in the 3rd Irish Forestery Fund and would like to join the case. I had been led to believe that this sale was in our best interest but what about all this conflict of interest with the directors who had a duty of care to us for the duration of their contract ie in my case 30 years. Not 21years and selling us out behind our backs when they will still be benefiting by stil maintaining them and being paid by AXA to do so. As there was no more grants due after the 20 year period I presume they would not be paid until the tres are cut, and the trees and land sold!
This in my opinion seems to be part of their reason for selling and not to get a good deal for us shareholders!
At time Paulie and Clever Trevor were saying its a gamble, well why not let the race run it's course?I think it’s more about governance/conflicts of interest than anyone expecting a guaranteed returns
You are not privy to what monitoring of the situation over 20 years was done, because people who were shareholders are discussing in this in emails.And for all that none of you have pointed out what was done incorrectly. Also where were you all for the last 20 years. About governance or conflicts of interest.
Why now, when the projected returns didn’t materialise.