No General Meeting is invalid by reason of the exclusion of parties entitled to attend, unless the votes held by those parties would have changed the outcome of the voting. What happened to Capt. Polyester today is very common, inasmuch that proxies claim that those they represent have not received notice of GMs, then claim that this is why they did not attend and, so, seek to invalidate the meeting. There is an irefutable logic to this, which is that proxies cannot speak at a GM, so are unable to influence the voting of other attendees.
I guess Buchler knew this. Capt. Polyester claims that Edwin Coe disagree, but then he probably spoke with a pissed-up Junior who imagines itself to know what it does not.
And there IS a way to hold an AGM before LGB is in breach of CA85, but this involves all ( I think , meaning I think ALL and not a majority) of those entitled to vote waiving their right to receive notice, which is obviously not going to occur in the instant case. Where is my CA85?
But breaching CA85 is nothing new to Buchler or Pearson. Subsidiaries of LGB failed to file accounts with CH under both regimes. So, you pay the penalty and steer true to your purpose. If Capt. Polyester imagines breaching CA85 will harm Buchler, or, indeed, any practitioner, then he clearly lives on a different planet to the rest of us. Its all part of the game.
Finally, a Christmas cooking tip from across the water:
If you are cooking your roast spuds in with the turkey (recommended), then make the giblet stock first and marinade (OK, then, soak) them in the hot stock for a few hours before roasting them. It both flavours the spuds beautifully and adds substance and flavour to the gravy which you then make using the stock.
The Ancoats Irish
Edited: This applies to proxies appointed before notice of the meeting was given, obviously, but that is of little practical effect.
Langbar Int stock quotes
Langbar Int stock charts
Follow this thread
