Rsv Shareholder's Action Group

MikeDP:
we are argueing over semantics which is wasteful since I still
think that we both agree that in the circumstances described
above there is an injured party . Read my previous statement again
(part of which I re-quote below):

"If any delay of settlement is caused by the sellers failure to
deliver shares on time then the buyers voting rights may be
impaired . Depending on who is responsible for the delay the
buyer then may have a legitimate grievance ."

Anything wrong with that or in conflict with your views ? I don't think
so. I am talking about "denial of voting rights" i.e. rights they should
have had if settlement had occurred but were denied , i.e. did not
receive . You are saying: "the buyer has no voting rights since
there was no settlement" . Too right but he should have had and
we both agree , so I think , that this gives entitlement to
compensation against the faulty party . Still having a problem
with that ??

Nobody here has commented on the crucial issue of nominee
voting rights and my previous comments thereon .
If I am a registered shareholder of a company I can nominate
my grandma to attend the AGM and vote on my behalf, I believe .
If I buy shares through a nominee account then the nominee
broker, upon settlement of the purchase can vote those shares
though he should really do so according to the wishes of the
beneficial owner . I can instruct him to vote my beneficially
owned shares according to my wishes . Alternatively , I can
ask him to issue a letter of representation so that I myself
can attend the AGM and vote those shares. So then I will be
representing the nominee broker who is the registered
shareholder but also representing myself as the beneficial owner .
Now there have been claims made by RSV shareholders
that they held such letter of representation from the nominee
broker (presumably after purchase settlement) but were refused
access /voting at the RSV AGM . If so, in my opinion such
exclusion , if it occurred , was an illegal denial of voting rights .
In that particular case any claim for compensation would be
against the RSV company , not against the sellers of the
shares (who had delivered and settled). On the other hand,
any shareholders under contracted settlement date before
the date of the AGM who suffered delays of settlement due
to late or non-delivery of shares would have claims of compensation
against the sellers of the shares due to breach of contract
which resulted in denial of rights which a timely settlement
would have given them .
In a comparable situation a house purchaser who has paid
the purchase money to his solicitor can expect to take delivery
of the house on the day of completion . Now the vendor may
ring up his solicitor saying that his removal arrangements had
broken down , could he delay completion by a week .The buyer
may refuse to agree to the delay . Nevertheless, if the vendor
insists , completion is delayed. The deposit money and maybe
the mortgage money stays with the buyers solicitor and the
deeds to the house stay with the sellers solicitor or deedholder .
The keys to the house stay with the vendor .
Then an infuriated buyer may turn up at the vendors house
saying : "get out. I have paid for this house. Give me the keys.
I have a right to occupy this house. The contract you signed
specifies that you must give vacant possession today . " If you
want to be pedantic, and lawyers often are pedantic, the legal
answer is that the buyer at that moment of time does not have a
right to occupy the house. He can not call the police to kick the
vendor out. The "take possession rights" only materialise at
actual completion . But there is , as I was saying with respect
to shares , a denial of rights reasonably expected under the
contract . The issue is settled , as Mike says, not by forcing
his way into the house but by claim of compensation by the
injured party against the faulty party .