London Stock Exchange Refuses me AGM entry as its press office lies – what is it scared of?

Comments

1. ---

   Jason

   29 April 2015, 07:08

   Did Lucian and others get in?… if so they’ll have to carry the baton. I wonder if you could release a statement to wider press saying you’ve been barred because you wanted to question them about AIM fraud & failure to regulate? That could potentially be even more embarrassing if reported.

2. ---

   Paul Scott

   29 April 2015, 07:15

   Hi Tom,

   I’ve had problems like this with being barred entry to AGMs, if they are expecting trouble. So I appreciate how annoying it is for you.

   There is no alternative but to buy a few shares in YOUR OWN NAME, and then get your broker to dematerialise them into certificated form, so that your name will appear on the shareholder register. That has to be planned ahead, so why not buy some shares in that manner now, for next year?!
   They can’t bar you then.

   Given your stated intentions for this meeting, it’s hardly any surprise that they looked for a loophole to ban you this year.

   Anyway, good effort, and I hope you get them next year!

   Regards, Paul.

3. ---

   turbograndad

   29 April 2015, 07:23

   Well well well, no shoot out at the nots so OK coral.
   I said in my previous post wishing you well in your endevours, when you have dysfunction, and obfuscation as a business model, well well well, no surprises there then Tom.
   Stiffen your resolve, and up an attum.

4. ---

   David Russell

   29 April 2015, 07:28

   Tom, Their is plenty of rules but they need some people to start enforcing them because people am losing confidence and that’s no good for anyone. This government could make a fortune out of asset stripping the financial crooks. The problem they have the rot runs to deep. The London stock exchange is a fantastic organisation but it as to look at AIM and some of the people who run some of these companies and ring fence shareholder’s cash Small investors need an insurance against being ripped off.

5. ---

   VINES

   29 April 2015, 07:35

   the rules is journalists can register on the day but bloggers have to register early to be vetted

   TW Note - The press office said on April 13 I could attend - ead the article you fucking idiot

6. ---

   Marvin

   29 April 2015, 07:41

   Take it as a compliment Tom.
   It shows you’re winning.

7. ---

   DUCK AND DIVE

   29 April 2015, 07:48

   What was “wrong” with the paperwork?

   It might be time to formally put your questions (as a shareholder) to the Chairman of LSE, cc’d to their Company Secretary and Nomad. Ask for them to be answered at the next General Meeting if not before. The rules state that your questions must be answered.

   And, of course, send out a press release exposing the lock-out and listing your questions. Right now would be the best time for that.

8. ---

   J P Spaghetti

   29 April 2015, 07:57

   Tom – I gather it’s not normally your thing and I have no legal background but you MUST have grounds for legal action against them for being refused entry. Surely. Now if you’d been granted entry only to be subsequently ushered out after giving them a grilling because of some trumped up claim that you were being unreasonably disruptive that would be one thing, but to not be allowed in as a shareholder?

9. ---

   Malcolm Stacey

   29 April 2015, 08:20

   This is outrageous, utterly outrageous!.

   I would send off a news release to all the papers.
   I would write to the chairman of the LSE. Then SP can publish the indefensible reply.
   I would ask my MP to raise it in the commons. (after the election, of course)
   I would issue a writ. It must be illegal to bar a shareholder from entry to the AGM.
   I would complain to the Department of Trade and Industry.
   I would complain to the FCA.

10. ---

    wildrides

    29 April 2015, 08:22

    You need to have the paper share certs in your own name and not that of a nominee account of your broker . Then you will get the statutory invite . Any other method you try can / will be thwarted on the day if they feel like it . Been through this myself with another company . Its quite legal to keep you out if your shares are held by a nominee or meeting invite has gone to previous holder of recently sold certificated shares . Otherwise its possible votes get used twice in theory ………. cant imagine any body would be assed to but they use this excuse to circumvent the law .

11. ---

    J P Spaghetti

    29 April 2015, 09:44

    Wildes – I thought Tom had the paper share certs in his own name after the QPP General Meeting. In any event, quoting from https://www.slaughterandmay.com/media/803989/the-law-of-difficult-meetings.pdf,

    “5. ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS: POWER TO EXCLUDE

    In the absence of a provision in the articles, there seems to be no scope to imply a right to exclude members who refuse to comply with reasonable conditions, such as submission to a search…The consequence of excluding a person who is entitled to attend could be to vitiate the meeting”.

    Note that there seems to be no scope to do so even if a member (by virtue of being a shareholder, I guess) REFUSES to comply with reasonable conditions. And to think there’s talk of giving prisoners the right to vote in general elections!

12. ---

    Andrew

    29 April 2015, 10:36

    I love it! I hope you had Darren filming events and if not, why not?. Are you sure it wasn’t because the Bouncer didn’t like you wearing trainers? Were your trousers clean Tom? What a sorry state of affairs. If you can’t ask questions of the LSE it shows what a complete shambles the whole thing is. This should be all over the media. I hope Lucien got in and ruffled some feathers.

13. ---

    Naomi

    29 April 2015, 11:10

    That’s appalling about being barred. I agree with all of Malcolm’s points.
    Why be so abusive though to Vines and Dave Jay?
    Keep up the excellent campaigning but keep it respectful!

14. ---

    Andrew

    29 April 2015, 11:32

    Tom,
    I adore this site but must agree. Call me a girl but the term cocksucker is a bit Clarkson. Don’t let it stop you though, it adds to your loose cannon appeal.

15. ---

    alcira16247

    29 April 2015, 12:32

    Tom

    A truly disgraceful state of affairs to-day, banning a widely acclaimed FINANCIAL JOURNALIST with a huge following within the private investing community. Unbelievable!

    The action of the LSE today, in my opinion is an insult and signal of disrespect to every private investor, who values and supports ShareProphets and the campaign to clean up the casino that’s AIM!

    The actions of the LSE today is nothing other than a tacit admittance of what a lousy job they are doing! And begs the question, exactly what do they have to hide?

    How about a press release explaining what legitimate reasons there were for today’s banning of free speech, LSE?

    Until then……… Board of the London Stock Exchange, hold down your heads in shame!

16. ---

    wildrides

    29 April 2015, 13:54

    spags ……….. naah …….. he had a letter from his broker confirming ownership and purchase invoice . Certs take forever to arrive after purchase and I think he only bought them quite recently . Dont get me wrong ………… I support Tom fully on this ………. just saying they have not broken any laws , cos if your not on their list of the share register and have the correct invite papers, they dont have to let you in if they dont want to .

17. ---

    filthylucre

    29 April 2015, 14:23

    Tom They told you that you needed to be on the shareholder register. What is difficult to understand?
    When I attend AGM’s I take a letter of representation, and I am let in. I can’t believe that you made the same mistake that you made at the Quindell AGM a year ago.
    Anyone would think that you didn’t really want to get in. Maybe so you can scream and shout afterwards?
    Very transparent in my view.

    TW Note - read the article tosser

18. ---

    PeterG

    29 April 2015, 16:48

    As WILDRIDES says the problem is private investor shares being held in the name of Broker Nominee companies rather than the name of the private investor.
    Technology and the internet have advanced enormously since the early 1990s when CREST was conceived as a Bank of England rescue of the ill fated LSE system Taurus. At that time nominee companies were the expedient solution. It is high time that the LSE reviewed the whole process of equity settlement to make it easier for private investors to be named on public company share registers and thereby end the disenfranchisement of private investors. (Yes private investors can have Crest accounts but this is not made easy and not supported by many brokers.)

19. ---

    Davejay

    29 April 2015, 18:01

    TW,

    I understand you are angry because your publicity stunt didn’t bear fruit. Calling me a liar and a cocksucker is forgiven as it is the reaction of a frustrated and angry man. I also understand that a proper journalist would have to have the right credentials, i.e. accredited to a legitimate news agency, to be admitted. Anyone can claim to be a journalist, even me, but I’m just a pub bore (ring any bells Tom.). What I don’t understand is why you are so surprised that they wouldn’t let you in. You have made your intentions very clear, you were going to disrupt the meeting. You invited them to refuse you entry so that you could use it to stir up the Winnifans.

    TW Note Davejay - they said I could go in as a journalist. They then decided to bar me. Read the story in full you thick cocksucker

20. ---

    Warun Boofit

    30 April 2015, 01:33

    The LSE management have shit in their pants and now they are stinking so bad that I dont want to go near them anymore.