Be the first to like this.
5 comment(s). Last comment by dumbMoney 2020-11-27 14:07
Posted by Integrity. Intelligent. Industrious. 3iii (iiinvestsmart)$€£¥ > 2020-11-27 10:17 | Report Abuse
Posted by Integrity. Intelligent. Industrious. 3iii (iiinvestsmart)$€£¥ > 2020-11-27 10:20 | Report Abuse
dumbMoney
761 posts
Posted by dumbMoney > 2020-11-27 00:59 | Report Abuse
On the judicial review of COL's position, the company's annual reports clearly stated the beneficial owners of the shares collectively managed by COL. There is no hiding of ownership by COL through nominees and prima facie, there is no breach and the SC would have ruled as such, based on the ownership list. The claim that COL owned the shares through nominees is not true. COL is reporting the total holdings as per the parties in concert rule, so the public is aware of its share transactions at any one time once it reached the significant shareholder reporting threshold. The SC's 20% individual shareholding limit does not prohibit parties acting in concert holding more than 20%, with the only requirement that once it reaches 33%, they must make a MGO for the remaining shares.