Paul1945 - I managed to donate £50 a few days ago, I cannot
remember how I got to the correct site. Try googling Mark Taber.
P.S. I believe The Times may want to interview one or more
afflicted/now relieved holders of Preference Shares. Might you
be interested, in which case please let me know and I'll give you
the email address of the correspondent dealing with this.
Please come back with simply Yes or No
There's one aspect of this that appears to have been overlooked. At the time the prefs were issued in 1992 there were a total of 542m shares in issue (including the prefs). On a resolution that affected the class rights of the prefs their votes counted for 4 per share.
As 100m prefs were issued this meant that they would have had 400m votes out of the 542m available. This would have enabled them to defeat any resolution that affected them adversely.
However, with the various corporate manoeuvres that have taken place since 1992 there are now 4,013m ordinary shares in issue. Consequently, even with the 4 votes each the prefs are now massively outnumbered, and would not have a hope in hell of defeating a resolution that adversely affected their class rights.
The net effect of the expansion of the ordinary shares and the consequent dilution has therefore been to remove completely the protection for the pref holders that was written into the original prospectus.
The 1992 prospectus specifically stated that the pref holders must be given notice of any resolution that adversely affected their rights and the opportunity to vote against it. Quite obviously, a resolution to increase the issued share capital would, by virtue of dilution, fall into that category.
So what should have happened was that every time new ords were issued the pref holders should have been given an opportunity to vote against the new issue. At the time they could have defeated such a vote, though in practice they would presumably have agreed provided their `veto vote' was increased pro rata, so as to preserve their rights.
So far as I can ascertain they were not given such notice, neither were they given a right to vote.
It would therefore appear that Aviva and their predecessors have, by ignoring the rights of the prefs, unlawfully deprived them of their right to protect themselves.
I sent this to ; [email protected] . I doubt Wilson will even see it but it released some of my anger !
As a holder of what were NU With Profit Bonds continuously since 1996 , I am horrified to hear you are contemplating cancelling the IRREDEEMABLE Preference shares I hold in AVA , AVB and also GACB.
Your words took more from me in twenty minutes than over 20 years of gains on the afore said With Profit Bonds.
As you can imagine I shall at the very least be looking to sell my policy with you and will not take out any new ones or insurance policies in the future. A TOTAL PR DISASTER.
Shame on you - even If you come to your senses and confirm you will not go forward with this plundering plan,
"Investors have reacted angrily to news that Aviva chief executive Mark Wilson is to take a seat on the board of BlackRock, the worlds biggest fund manager.
Aviva has its own fund management arm, Aviva Investors, and one of Mr Wilsons priorities has been to turn it round.
Im shocked. If one of the main parts of your business is asset management and you join the board of a rival asset manager, that is a massive conflict of interest, said one leading investor.
A top 10 shareholder said: It feels like an unnecessary conflict. It should be a step further away from your own business.
Shareholders said they were also worried about the time commitment involved in preparing for and attending BlackRock board meetings.
Mr Wilsons new role adds pressure to the relationship between Aviva and its investors, at the end of a week when the company came under fire for its plan to cancel so-called irredeemable preference shares..."
I for one have just sent a hard copy letter to two of the directors to protest... lack of integrity, forcing one group of shareholders to take a loss to enrich another, questioning whether they are complying with the UK Corporate Governance Code, Dialogue with Shareholders etc.
I know that hard copy letters to the main board often don't get delivered internally, but thought it worth a try.
"Neither this document nor the additional information provided should be taken as a statement of the Companys intent either with respect to any decision to return capital on the preference shares, the mechanism of cancellation or the amount per preference share to be returned, and no inference of such intention should be made. No decision has yet been taken. If and when a decision is taken, we will make the appropriate market announcements."
Aviva were pretty adamant initially that they could redeem at par, however they now seem to be suggesting above that "the amount per preference share to be returned" is completely undecided - if it happens at all, of course ?
I'd be most interested to hear why Aviva believe they EU Directive (EU) 2017/1132 of the European Parliament doesn't apply as it clearly states that in a reduction of capital all affected classes of shares get a separate vote!
Reduction in the subscribed capital in case of several classes of shares
Where there are several classes of shares, the decision by the general meeting concerning a reduction in the subscribed capital shall be subject to a separate vote, at least for each class of shareholders whose rights are affected by the transaction.
I agree with Bill, they are now realising the stupidity of the very naive statement made. To redeem £450 mil of shares they would either need to borrow the money or use their own capital. One would now cost more than they originally envisaged and by using their own capital they would lose any interest or earnings from it. This would make the overall savings quite paltry, probably only in the region of £15 mill. Hardly worth the effort when profit is over £2 billion. They would lose that sum in loss of goodwill, increased borrowing rates and loss of renewals and investments
"Certainly seems that they are determined to continue with their plan, and as you say it sounds ominous for GA pref holders as they clearly control the vote there."
An interesting statement indeed from AV, though I actually read it the other way, Pref... I see it as a the first stage of a face-saving operation, designed to clarify and defend the original statement, not the final decision to proceed - which, as they have gone out of their way to make clear, has not been taken.
The outcry has been vociferous, from both private and institutional investors alike, with action groups quickly assembled, intense media lobbying and various veiled (and not so veiled) threats levelled. This continues as long as the situation remains up in the air, can only build from here... and will become explosive indeed upon any indication they intend to proceed regardless.
I see a back-down as most likely, if not quite inevitable, for which they are already preparing the ground... though I agree, the additional comment on the GA issue was probably unwise in the current, highly charged climate, though may also have been intended as clarification of the legal situation.
Useful piece about about Aviva and others by Questor in today's Daily Telegraph money supplement, as well as a smaller piece in the same issue - but you may need to be a subscriber to read them online.
Important message from the Financial Conduct Authority:
Posting inside information that is not public knowledge, or information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse.
This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison.
If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse, click here.
The content of the messages posted represents the opinions of the author, and does not represent the opinions of Interactive Investor Trading Limited or its affiliates and has not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
You should be aware that the other participants of the above discussion group are strangers to you and may make statements which may be misleading, deceptive or wrong.
Please remember that the value of investments or income from them may go down as well as up and that the past performance of an investment is not a guide to its performance in the future.
The discussion boards on this site are intended to be an information sharing forum and is not intended to address your particular requirements.
Whilst information provided on them can help with your investment research you need to consider carefully whether you should make (or refraining from making) investment or other decisions based on what you see without doing further research on investments you are interested in.
Participating in this forum cannot be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate expert independent adviser who takes into account your circumstances and specific investment needs in selected investments that are appropriate for you.