|
Post by Rovergrant on Mar 23, 2024 12:48:24 GMT
If you look at the legal case I quoted above as supplied to me by ARFC solicitor when I questioned the handing over of shareholders details to Paul Reilly, you will see that the advice given was based upon that judgement handed down in that case.
|
|
|
Post by Rovergrant on Mar 23, 2024 12:55:07 GMT
More...... There has always been a fine balance to be struck between the public interest in understanding who owns and runs companies and protection of the personal information of those who do. The Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) provides a mechanism to obtain a copy of a company’s register of members. However, in an age where information is an asset of increasing value, individuals or entities who are hoping to benefit from the use of such details will find the courts ready to police their efforts and consider whether the information is being requested for a proper purpose. What constitutes a proper purpose (such as to allow access to the register) can be a matter of some contention, particularly since there is very little judicial guidance and no statutory definition. In Fox- Davies v Burberry plc the Court of Appeal recently considered the issue for only the second time. Rights of access Every company with a share capital must keep a register of its members, including their addresses, under s113 CA 2006. Prior to the Companies Act 1985, a shareholder’s right to access the register of members was treated as incidental to his ownership of shares. After 1985, the court had a discretion to allow inspection, but the grounds for exercise of this discretion were clarified under s116 CA 2006 as it had become clear that there were some only too willing to abuse the rights of access in order to advertise or solicit customers. Pursuant to s116 CA 2006, that register of members is open to inspection by any person who makes a request in the prescribed format and pays the necessary fee, provided that they state the purpose for which the information is to be used and identify any other person to whom the information will be disclosed (i.e. the extent of the proposed dissemination of the information). A company which receives such a request must then act swiftly. Within five working days of receipt of a technically valid request, the company must either comply or apply to the court under s117 CA 2006 for a direction that it need not comply because the information is not being sought for a “proper purpose”. If the company refuses a valid request to inspect without such a court order, it will be committing a criminal offence under s118 CA 2006; if it accedes to an improper request, it may be at risk of a claim by a shareholder this his data protection rights have been infringed. Equally, where a request for a copy of the register is knowingly or recklessly misleading or false, the requestor will attract criminal liability under s119 CA 2006. The question of proper purpose The requirement to deal with a s116 request swiftly and the potential criminal sanctions are fairly draconian. If a request does not comply with the “technical” requirements of s116 (i.e. it does not set out all the information required by that section, including the identity of any persons to whom the information is to be disclosed), it will not be valid and the company can resist it. More difficult is determining whether the request has been made for a proper purpose; the burden of proof in demonstrating (on the balance of probabilities) that a request is for an improper purpose is on the company. The law in this area has been left to develop on a case by case basis. Given the lack of clarification within the CA 2006 as to what constitutes a “proper purpose” in relation to a s116 request, in January 2014 the Institute of Chartered Secretaries & Administrators (ICSA) produced a guidance note including examples of proper and improper purposes. For example, a shareholder or indirect investor wanting to contact other shareholders about matters relating to the company, their shareholding or a related exercise of rights would, according to the ICSA guidance, have a proper purpose. However, requests from agencies which “specialise in identifying and recovering unclaimed assets for [their] own commercial gain by then contacting and extracting commission or fees from the beneficiaries” would not have a proper purpose “where the company is not satisfied that such activity is in the interests of shareholders”. This last paragraph would , in my opinion, means that PR`s request would have a `proper purpose`...in that he wished to make an offer to shareholders for their shares, whilst to most PR`s action may be repellent, in the eyes of the law it is not illegal, hence the club, in seeking and taking legal advice took the right course of action, however much individuals disagree with it. Here is my source on the above, www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/fbb1f442/protecting-shareholder-information-the-balance-between-public-interest-and-commercial-exploitation---emrichard-charles-fox-davies-v-burberry-plcem-2017-ewca-civ-1129
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 23, 2024 13:17:06 GMT
Pursuant to s116 CA 2006, that register of members is open to inspection by any person who makes a request in the prescribed format and pays the necessary fee... Thanks for pulling that together, Grant. I've left the part that I found most intriguing quoted above. Can Jordan confirm that a fee was paid by Mr Reilly for this information, and if so how much that fee was?
|
|
|
Post by Rovergrant on Mar 23, 2024 13:25:35 GMT
Stephen, as Jordan is no longer a member of that BOD I don`t think it would be appropriate for him to divulge that information...perhaps that question could be brought up at the AGM?
|
|
|
Post by jordancampbell on Mar 23, 2024 23:39:29 GMT
The Club took legal advice and paid for it.
I’ve made clear on this forum what that was and it reflected the position of the Board at the time.
What Patrick Gilolly, Ryan Kelly, and others have said/claimed…there’s no revelation there.
|
|
|
Post by patgillooly on Mar 24, 2024 0:07:42 GMT
The Club took legal advice and paid for it. I’ve made clear on this forum what that was and it reflected the position of the Board at the time. What Patrick Gilolly, Ryan Kelly, and others have said/claimed…there’s no revelation there. hi Jordan I hope you are well? Grants post failed to mention that you indeed can give out the information. But the shareholders have to be informed you are giving out there personal information beforehand.
|
|
|
Post by patgillooly on Mar 24, 2024 0:13:31 GMT
A few things: • Quite incredible that, with ten full days notice, the turnout at the meeting was so poor. Less than 20, with 6 who would have been in the stadium anyway (media team, Directors, and a volunteer). • This was the best opportunity (to date) to openly discuss the merits and “plan” for fan ownership in an honest, open, and transparent way. Utterly baffled at why so few actually bothered to turn up. Including some who are particularly vocal on this forum and elsewhere. • The Interim Chairman (Bobby) was very clear indeed re: the Boards collective position and reasoning behind this. Despite this, he was subject to ridiculous scrutiny and was interrupted on a few occasions from certain quarters. • There is utter contempt (particularly from Ronnie Boyd) towards anyone who holds a considerable amount of shares but doesn’t turn up “week in, week out” or contribute “significant finance”. Absolutely no understanding of personal circumstances, emotional ties to the Club, or any other mitigating factors. To me, it was a well rehearsed and tedious stage play. Nothing new was learned re: fan ownership, tired old lines were repeated, and a few people in the room attempted to dominate proceedings and railroad the Trust members into backing their position. Oh, and a threat to “walk away” was made repeatedly along with litany of sarcastic comments and applause. The last person to threaten that? I’ll leave it with you. I’d urge everyone who can (and is willing) to step and up and support the current Board of Directors in any way they can ahead of next season. It is clear to me that, after last night, there needs to be unity and not division. There also needs to be a laser focus on next season and diverting all our attention towards making it a success. Division is not the answer. if you indeed did have an issue with the stuff you have just mentioned in your post? Why not hang about and discuss it with me after the meeting, instead of running away dead fast and hiding? You are all wind my friend. You offer very little Jordan.
|
|
|
Post by Rovergrant on Mar 24, 2024 6:32:50 GMT
Paul Reilly requests full access to shareholders register.
BOD seek legal advice
Based upon that advice BOD grant PR access to shareholders register
Jordan Campbell, member of BOD passes share register to PR
Would there have been the same `song and dance` if it had been Mark Hunter, Ian Benton etc had been the one who carried out BOD`s decision?
I rest my case m`lud
|
|
|
Post by mildrover on Mar 24, 2024 8:23:05 GMT
I am no expert in Data Protection law so I can only offer a layperson’s response to this.
I was and still am uncomfortable at the fact that Paul Reilly has my address and the address of other family members. I’m surprised that it is legal for him to be given this without my knowledge or permission. I thought I had to be asked by any organisation holding information on me to complete a form outlining what they can or can’t do with the information they hold on me. I don’t recall being asked by the club to do so.
Lastly, were there any safeguards put in place regarding the return of the information or destruction of the information by Paul Reilly after its use for the stated purpose?
I know this is mostly an emotional response but all the legal advice does not stop me feeling uncomfortable because this person holds information on me.
Ronnie
|
|
|
Post by jordancampbell on Mar 24, 2024 8:37:21 GMT
Paul Reilly requests full access to shareholders register. BOD seek legal advice Based upon that advice BOD grant PR access to shareholders register Jordan Campbell, member of BOD passes share register to PR Would there have been the same `song and dance` if it had been Mark Hunter, Ian Benton etc had been the one who carried out BOD`s decision? I rest my case m`lud Thanks for laying out the chain of events, Grant, for those incapable of understanding what I’ve already explained. Goodness, Pat, it’s quite something that you’re posting on here! For someone who “doesn’t care about Albion Rovers” and “could just walk away” this seems to have stirred up your emotions. I left the meeting because it was over and I had nothing left to say to you or anyone else. The Board, of the time, acted upon paid for legal advice from a Solicitor Advocate. The Board were limited in business and professional experience so took the decision to instruct counsel. The Board followed their advice. Perhaps if previous Boards had done the same (say when arranging sell on fees for players/signing up to loans) Albion Rovers would be in a healthier position than we are.
|
|
|
Post by Rovergrant on Mar 24, 2024 8:39:38 GMT
Don`t disagree, Ronnie with what your saying, as you and I discussed last October. That was my motivation for contacting the club and expressing my disquiet. Once information is handed over, no matter what guarantees are given cant see them being enforceable, anyway I`m sure PR will have kept copies of all letters, e mails etc he sent to those individuals to whom he sent offers for their shares.
|
|
|
Post by patgillooly on Mar 24, 2024 11:46:49 GMT
Paul Reilly requests full access to shareholders register. BOD seek legal advice Based upon that advice BOD grant PR access to shareholders register Jordan Campbell, member of BOD passes share register to PR Would there have been the same `song and dance` if it had been Mark Hunter, Ian Benton etc had been the one who carried out BOD`s decision? I rest my case m`lud Thanks for laying out the chain of events, Grant, for those incapable of understanding what I’ve already explained. Goodness, Pat, it’s quite something that you’re posting on here! For someone who “doesn’t care about Albion Rovers” and “could just walk away” this seems to have stirred up your emotions. I left the meeting because it was over and I had nothing left to say to you or anyone else. The Board, of the time, acted upon paid for legal advice from a Solicitor Advocate. The Board were limited in business and professional experience so took the decision to instruct counsel. The Board followed their advice. Perhaps if previous Boards had done the same (say when arranging sell on fees for players/signing up to loans) Albion Rovers would be in a healthier position than we are. Good morning Jordan please get your facts rights. This is the reason I have decided to do something like this and come on this board. Firstly to say I don’t care about Albion Rovers considering the sum of money we have offered to give to both the fans and the club, to allow the opportunity to purchase shares to stave of unwanted approaches to buy the club makes you remarks as absurd as your previous divisive posts. Secondly in my tenure at the club I spent a huge amount of my own money to firstly fire proof the stadium, when being informed by the fire service that the club would have to find an alternative venue as after many years of lying about moving stadium, by my many predecessors, the stadium unless brought up to safety fire standards, would be closed to the public. I could easily have walked away the same as the previous chairman and other directors who left the massive player budget that they had spent for the upcoming season. I left then club due to a serious illness and left the club in the first division and tell me all you did for the club during your tenure and what division they were in when you left Jordan. If you would like to discuss the loan you have mentioned let me know and i will discuss it on this forum ? I have sponsored the shirts and made many financial donations to the club from my company’s over the years, in fact I offered to pay £5000 to underwrite the Shimla cottage offer, but you and your board of the time, didn’t have the decency to come back to me. Is this someone who doesn’t care about the Rovers the I apologise Jordan! If you want to see the true contribution of the Gillooly family to the club, look at the head of the tunnel every home game and see Terry Gillooly keep order and deal with the idiots that come to the ground!! Getting abused and spat on by these clowns. My 2 nephews having to restore order at Cumbernauld game again getting spat on and abused by so called fans and also a Rovers player.Tell me Jordan the great Albion Rovers man were you out helping them with your great friends the board? No as usual you probably ran away and put it on the forum as is your way. To the other members of this forum I apologise for coming on here and having a rant but we have had enough of this divisive rhetoric. Pat Gillooly
|
|
|
Post by jordancampbell on Mar 24, 2024 16:18:53 GMT
It’s not really in my nature to discuss the contribution I make to ARFC, I tend to go about doing what I do and have done quietly. The current Board (especially Bobby and Hugh) are the same. Humble, hard-working men who try with all they have to improve the Club’s fortunes on and off the park. What you do, Pat, and you seem to do quite well, is present one version of a story and neglect to elaborate on much else. Your language is money and insults. Threats too, whether financial (to walk away) or personal. Tedious stuff.
|
|
|
Post by patgillooly on Mar 24, 2024 17:22:19 GMT
It’s not really in my nature to discuss the contribution I make to ARFC, I tend to go about doing what I do and have done quietly. The current Board (especially Bobby and Hugh) are the same. Humble, hard-working men who try with all they have to improve the Club’s fortunes on and off the park. What you do, Pat, and you seem to do quite well, is present one version of a story and neglect to elaborate on much else. Your language is money and insults. Threats too, whether financial (to walk away) or personal. Tedious stuff. Hi Jordan thanks for your reply. As I thought you have nothing absolutely nothing. You have constantly had digs at Ronnie Boyd on this subject, nonstop digs for weeks now. You have blamed the relegation of the club to the embarrassing level of the lowland on everyone else but in fact your board were the guys driving the club, and must take responsibility for its current position. I couldn’t believe yesterday that the team lost at home to Edinburgh University!! Results like this doesn’t bode well for the future of the club. As for accusing myself of insults, my first encounter with yourself a number of years ago. Was to chide you about insulting a club director Terry Gillooly who you called a no mark on this very forum. If I remember correctly when asked to say it to Terrys face but as is your way you bottled it and asked if Terry would accept your pitiful apology. So please Jordan don’t throw stones. If you want to discuss this with me and the previous statements that you have mentioned regarding myself and Ronnie, and anything else you have on your mind regards Albion Rovers with me I will afford you the time any place of your choosing. I prefer face to face discussions as opposed this form of communication. Pat Gillool
|
|
|
Post by jordancampbell on Mar 24, 2024 18:22:58 GMT
Again lots of claims but very limited context, Pat.
RE: the relegation of the Club. I’ve never ever shirked responsibility for last season’s events. It happened, we can’t change that. The trapdoor is fair and recent to the game. Sadly, it was bound to happen at some point with limited investment, at the time, coming into the Club.
I recall that. I also recall other things about that time. You attempted to intimidate me. You and I know that - not very becoming of a chairman at the time.
|
|