The Old Git Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Exactly! If I were to banned as a director (assuming I hadn't being ripping my company off) then I'd likely carry on as before, but this time wearing various hats labelled "Company Secretary", "Office Manager" etc., and nothing would really change. If it was a big financial institution then I'd hope the situation would be different I don't know the case that traveller is referring to, maybe all will be revealed shortly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Not so sure. It's got that 9.30 a.m. feel about it so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 He could be performing all of the tasks described perfectly legitimately on a consultancy or managerial basis without being a shadow director. He would only be a shadow director if he was making the decisions for the company and having them ratified/rubber stamped by Director(s) who were as such in name only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveller Posted February 17, 2005 Author Share Posted February 17, 2005 Don't you think it just seems a bit rich and almost 007 style and snubbing authority - to have invested the family wealth into a gap in the local country market that you are allowed after just recently being disqualified asa company director to "come out of semi-retirement to look after the business" (i.e presumably your own stash of cash youv'e invested). So who doesn't expect that if 007 wants the busienss to go in a certain direction or thinks it should extend credit to someone or other the wife and daughter will say no?? So whose influence is it?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R_ReaVeR Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I don't know the case that traveller is referring to, maybe all will be revealed shortly? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm guessing by the reference traveller is making to 007 it should not be difficult to guess as to who on the list of disqualified directors he is referring to. Then again I may be completely on the wrong track FSC List of Disqualified Directors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Hands up who's confused!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I'm guessing by the reference traveller is making to 007 As soo as I saw that I knew who he meant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Let's not mess around, 007 has been disqualified. That is a fact The rest is just speculation, albeit that ithe topic may have clarified what the extent of the abstract prohibition of disqualification is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 ahhh....007...now i get it. Although my next thought was YEAH. AND. SO. WHAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Can I just remind everyone to be very careful about both explicit and implied allegations regarding named individuals. We really don't want the hassle. Mods will err on the side of caution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveller Posted February 17, 2005 Author Share Posted February 17, 2005 I'm told that apparently there is enuf in the public domain about what 007 is up to to warrant the FSC looking into the matter.......but what will happen?? how will anyone know?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey_magic Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Did you go to school with crumlin and fcmr? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I'm told that apparently there is enuf in the public domain about what 007 is up to to warrant the FSC looking into the matter.......but what will happen?? how will anyone know?? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I refer the honourable gentleman to my earlier post! I think that the FSC will be the least of his worries given his client base! Lets just say that he should be wary of putting his feet in any wellington boots. And as for posts that start "I'm told that apparently...." I mean come on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy camper Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Of course traveller didn't go to school with them. Unless s/he learnt sentence construction at night school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 I'm told that apparently there is enuf in the public domain about what 007 is up to to warrant the FSC looking into the matter.......but what will happen?? how will anyone know?? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pray tell, what powers have the FSC got to actively investigate this type of thing? AFAIK, their powers to investigate *under compulsion* are limited to breaches of specific acts such as the banking and investment business acts and won't apply to give them any teeth here. If on the other hand, you've got genuine evidence rather than innuendo, insinuation and a promotional newspaper article to back up your claims, no doubt you'll be making your way to Finch Hill House and putting an open and shut case to the FSC. BTW, I'd be very careful - as I've tried to be - about stating anything other than a fact which is true or which has previously been published or is entirely abstract. I'm sure no-one wants to cause the forum owners or mods any trouble. It's one thing to say (as I have) that 007 has been disqualified and another to say or imply (which I have no intention of doing) that he's been naughty after disqualification unless you've got evidence to back up that claim. And using "allegedly" and giving cryptic pointers is no defence to a claim for damages (allegedly) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.