Thank you for joining in, Image. A local legal professional is always helpful.
As noted earlier, I have no urge to get involved in in a Moot Court debate. I left such things behind more than half a century ago. Never liked the view from either behind a desk or a from a bench.
I guess that, like the traditional body shape, there a cachet to having some continued input from the family to claim .... assists with the sense of continuous history.
You mean the warm and fuzzy feeling thing? Yes. Lot of that going around. I learned to ignore it a long time ago...starting around February 2000. (wryly)
Lorne talks of those with 'significant control' .... a minority family block doesn't fall under this heading ... not like 20% can force a decision their way. Though in the case of a disaster it might be enough to negotiate retention of the name in return for co-operation in other areas of the wind-up. Hopefully it never comes to that ... The entries in the East African Safari does indicate people at the top who are petrolheads ... I wish the company all success!
Actually, we both know that the world mega-corporations and many others are normally tightly controlled by blocs of under 5%. These government rules are always silly and arbitary. It is why they are constantly expanded by the Courts to reflect the "de facto" situation rather than one merely "de jure".
You will notice from Company House that most of the resigning and appointed MMC entities "possessing significant control": were not shareholders at all! gmg
