Member Info for Drumnatiny

"a public company within six months beginning with the day following its accounting reference date (section 336(1), companies act 2006 opens in a new window (ca 2006))."

"the ca 2006 does not specify what business must be transacted at an agm, nor are there any restrictions on business. usually the meeting is used for matters which must be dealt with each financial year, such as approval of share capital authorities, the re-election of directors, fixing the remuneration of auditors and consideration of the annual accounts (as defined in section 471, ca 2006). "

surreynot123, ****goestheeasal - i see that you seem to have some experience regarding last years agm and correspondance with the board just now, or grave lack of it! have you had any email replies from the board in last couple of weeks regarding questions you asked? will board members present at agm or will it be video link like last year?

if we had a repeat of last year, recording the meeting and lodging with the board and companies house (where plc have to follow law) and then calling for an egm at which "no confidence" is proposed? anyone knowledgable about how many shareholders it takes to make a to proposition at agm. from above you can see that there are "no restrictions" on business at the agm so board cannot refuse to hear motion.

i also from my stockbrokers file on condor, there is no announcement/notice of the agm and its date - i heard one of you mention a date and place: may i ask where you saw it?

reason is that they have to give notice of agm, and i can't find it. if i am accurate, another failing and support for "no confidence" motion.

finally can i ask if others would commit themselves to at agm if some above were lodged by shareholders.

looking forward, in hope!, to hearing from you.

You stated:

"That does not absolve any of us from the consequences of our own decisions. If you've held out of some emotional attachment and not willing to just take the loss on the chin and move on, that's on you."

As share holders in a PLC we have a right regularly to receive information, especially when actions by Board Members are effecting the company, in the way that they are at Condor - it is the Legal Duty of Chairman, MDs to regularly update.

Last info we had was more than 6 months ago, and that was of little substance! We the shareholders a losing because of the Board Members not meeting duties/obligations within a PLC. They are not meeting legal requirements.

I should NOT have to be "willing to just take the loss on the chin and move on, that's on you" because of Board Members not carrying out duties.

The Chairman, Manging Director, Finance Director and members of a board, which is listed on a Public Stockmarket, have a obligation by the Laws of Public Listed Companies, to update investors in the company. To those, who on this chat say we should not expect, AND not receive regular updates from the Board of the public company we have invested in, you must must be standing as candidates in this general election, as what you are claiming is absolute rubbish.

Is there a case for proposing a "No Confidence" motion at the AGM, because of Chairman and Managing Director's failure to update?