RNS Number : 3563C
Mission Capital PLC
11 November 2009
11 November 2009
Mission Capital plc
The Company notifies that due to a typographical error in its announcement of 26 October 2009, under RNS number 4012B, the new registered address was shown as 24 Queen Street, instead of the correct adrress, being 24 Queen Anne Street. All other details remain the same and the full wording of the corrected announcement is reproduced below:
Change of Registered Office
Mission Capital plc announces that its registered office has been changed, with immediate effect, to:
Mission Capital plc
24 Queen Anne Street
London
W1G 9AX.
This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange
Date: 1 May 2008
On behalf of: Emma and Neil Sinclair
For immediate release
RESPONSE TO AGM STATEMENT ISSUED BY MISSION CAPITAL PLC
Emma and Neil Sinclair feel compelled to issue this statement following Mission Capital plc’s AGM Statement (“the Statement”) issued at 7am on 30 April 2008 and the AGM of the Company held yesterday.
The Statement issued by the Board of the Company is defamatory, misleading and contained numerous unsubstantiated allegations about them.
Independent shareholders in Mission Capital, who attended the meeting today and represent over 40% of the votes, challenged the Mission Capital Board on a number of issues, including:
• Robert Burrow’s Share Dealing Two Days Prior to AGM
Shareholders questioned whether the Mission Capital Board had approved the purchase of 2,553,873 shares by Mr Burrow from Arbuthnot (the Company’s NOMAD and broker) and a further 2,553,873 under the exercise of Mr Burrow’s warrants, in off market transactions, two days prior to the AGM. The shares were acquired at 7p per share when the market price for those shares was 2.625p. Shareholders questioned why Mr Burrow would pay almost three times market value. Mr Burrow was also interrogated as to whether he was privy to the results of voting on the resolutions for the forthcoming AGM when the decision to acquire the shares and exercise warrants took place. The Board was also asked whether it had approved the transactions and admitted that its approval had not been sought. Mr Burrow admitted that he was aware of the results of the voting on the AGM resolutions at the time he decided to acquire more shares at above market price.
• Allegations Against the Sinclairs
The Board refused to provide details to substantiate their Statement about mis-use of Company property. However, after demands from shareholders, they did concede that the Sinclairs had only admitted to inadvertent personal expenditure relating to one jar of coffee and one haircut not £35,000 as suggested by the Statement. The Sinclairs utterly refute any mis-use of Company property. They consider the making of this Statement, which they believe to be untrue and misleading, to be an abuse of the regulatory news service and of their position as directors of the Company.
• Write Down of Assets
The Statement stated that King Sturge had valued the Athens portfolio at £33.9m at 31 December 2007 – this is incorrect and was shown to be so when the King Sturge valuation was read out to the meeting by a shareholder showing that the value was in fact £34.9m. The Board was unable to explain the disappearing £1m.
At the AGM, the Board also revealed that they had not informed Grant Thornton, the Company’s auditors, that Chelsfield had made a written offer in late January 2008 to the Company to acquire its interest in the Athens portfolio and to compensate it for the loss of the management fees – the offer was for over £500,000. Independent shareholders at the meeting questioned the reliability of the Company’s accounts in giving no value to the Athens portfolio which resulted in a dramatic fall in the Company’s share price.
• Legal Costs
The legal costs in excess of £200,000 incurred by the Company are as a result of the unlawful actions of its Board in purporting to terminate the Sinclairs’ contracts which has created this unnecessary litigation. These costs will escalate as the Sinclairs’ have confirmed intention to pursue unfair dismissal proceedings and claims for defamation. The Sinclairs’ advisers have confirmed that there are no costs due for payment which have been assessed by the High Court, contrary to the AGM Statement.
Again, contrary to the AGM statement, the Sinclairs were successful in joining the non-executive directors into the proceedings and it is not known whether the Company is paying for their costs as well as the Company’s.
There was widespread dismay expressed by shareholders independent of the B
The contents of the postings summarised here represents the opinions of the authors and not of Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
They have not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
