I would have thought that they were duty bound to tell the share holders, after all she share holders own the compoany not the BoD. If they didn't they would be with-holding facts from Share holders whicn may, or may not, affect their decisions in respect of the shares that they hold....Directors have gone to prison for less !
A Judicial Review can only be taken against a public body, not a private individual or company. A Judge of a Judicial Review only has to look at the terms of regulations governing the pubic office and decide if the correct procedures have been followed by them. If they have not, then it goes back to square one, and the office can review its procedures and do them properly and reinstate the planning permission again. At best it would be a delaying tactic. But, since this is the Department of the Environment, then it is most unlikely that they have omited the correct procedures by not taking into account the plaintive's submission re environmental impact etc.. IMO the plaintive is wasting their money which will cost upwards of £30,000, probably more like £60,000 to £100,000 as expert witnesses will have to be called in and the case would be strung out.If the JR rules in favour of the DofE then if the plaintive wishes to take it to appeal, if allowed, it will cost this a like sum to bring the appeal. I hope this is not being done under Legal Aid ? !
I can understand why some may feel the RNS was stating the obvious and not worth the paper it was written on, but I'm taking a contrary view. I think it was a message for somebody (some party). BoD's are not normally given to writing messages without having some ulterior motive. I'm hoping all will become clear soon, but this RNS had a purpose for something - we don't know what we don't know!
I was into Caza and they were getting into debt, instead of off loading some of their assets, they held on and held on, probably worried about their own jobs. Igas have assets which they can off load for cash
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.