Member Info for ElephantInDaRoom

hunniford

Any objections if we were all to cut and paste your email and send it to the board asking for a date to re start lending.
After all the social media fanfare I think we all deserve a bit of stability!

Do you think it would add a bit more impetus if we all sent the email?

I am sure all of us genuine investors feel like the board is letting us down by not fixing a re lending date,.
Surely they could plan that in a brief meeting???

Finally, if that's ok with you, what is the best email address to send it too?

Checkmate (often shortened to mate) is a game position in chess and other chess-like games in which a player's king is in check (threatened with capture) and there is no way to avoid the threat. Checkmating the opponent wins the game.

Will it rerate to Motleys 50p?
Or to JB's 105p?
Or GC's 31p?

Once upon a time there was a deadly virus called COVID19.

The government sent everyone home and gave them money or interest free loans!

THEN the government started to run out of money.

SADLY everyone had to go back to work.

THEN normal loans with Interest returned.

AND Amigo Loans Lived Happily Ever After.

My Bad Gary :) Email:

Name:

Date & Location Of The AGM: To be held at 10.45 a.m. on 29 September 2020at Nova, 118-128 Commercial Road, Bournemouth, England, BH2 5LT

Share Dealing IG Account Number: Account ID:

ISA IG Account Number: Account ID:

TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES IN VOTE:

Please Can you confirm you have received my votes over the ex date as detailed below:
Please cast my votes at the general meeting on 29th Sept as follows:

Ordinary Resolutions

FOR 1. THAT James Benamor is appointed as a director of the Company with immediate effect.
FOR 2. THAT Nayan Kisnadwala is removed as a director of the Company with immediate effect.
FOR 3. THAT Roger Lovering is removed as a director of the Company with immediate effect.
FOR 4. THAT Glen Crawford is appointed as a director of Amigo Loans Ltd with immediate effect.
FOR 5. THAT Gary Jennison is appointed as a director of Amigo Loans Ltd with immediate effect.
FOR 6. THAT Richard Price is appointed as a director of Amigo Loans Ltd with immediate effect.
FOR 7. THAT Jonathan Roe is appointed as a director of Amigo Loans Ltd with immediate effect.

please cast my votes at the Annual general meeting on 29th Sept as follows:

Ordinary Resolutions

AGAINST 1. To receive the annual accounts of the Company and the reports of the Directors for the financial year ended 31 March 2020, together with the report of the auditor thereon.

AGAINST 2. To approve the Directors’ Remuneration Report for the financial year ended 31 March 2020 as set out on pages 69 to 82 (inclusive) of the Annual Report and Accounts 2020.

AGAINST 3. To re-elect Roger Lovering as a Director of the Company.

FOR 4. To re-elect Richard Price as a Director of the Company.

FOR 5. To elect Jonathan Roe as a Director of the Company.

FOR 6. To elect Gary Jennison as a Director of the Company.

AGAINST 7. To re-elect Nayan Kisnadwala as a Director of the Company.

AGAINST 8. To re-appoint KPMG LLP as auditor of the Company to hold office until the conclusion of the next general meeting at which accounts are laid before the Company.

AGAINST 9. To authorise the Directors to set the remuneration of the auditor.

AGAINST 10. That the Directors be and are hereby generally and unconditionally authorised for the purposes of Article 95.2 of the Articles of Association of the Company to incur and permit subsidiaries of the Company to incur and have outstanding borrowings (including any refinancing of such borrowings) up to a sum equal to seven times the aggregate of (a) the amount paid up on the issued share capital of the Company; and (ii) the total of the capital and revenue reserves of the Company and its subsidiary undertakings (the “Group”) as shown in the latest audited consolidated statement of financial position of the Group adjusted as appropriate pursuant to Article 95.1(i) to (v).
AGAINST 11. That any and all monies borrowed, or any other actions ccontemplated by Article 95 of the ....

My Bad Gary :) Email:

Name:

Date & Location Of The AGM: To be held at 10.45 a.m. on 29 September 2020at Nova, 118-128 Commercial Road, Bournemouth, England, BH2 5LT

Share Dealing IG Account Number: Account ID:

ISA IG Account Number: Account ID:

TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES IN VOTE:

Please Can you confirm you have received my votes over the ex date as detailed below:
Please cast my votes at the general meeting on 29th Sept as follows:

Ordinary Resolutions

FOR 1. THAT James Benamor is appointed as a director of the Company with immediate effect.
FOR 2. THAT Nayan Kisnadwala is removed as a director of the Company with immediate effect.
FOR 3. THAT Roger Lovering is removed as a director of the Company with immediate effect.
FOR 4. THAT Glen Crawford is appointed as a director of Amigo Loans Ltd with immediate effect.
FOR 5. THAT Gary Jennison is appointed as a director of Amigo Loans Ltd with immediate effect.
FOR 6. THAT Richard Price is appointed as a director of Amigo Loans Ltd with immediate effect.
FOR 7. THAT Jonathan Roe is appointed as a director of Amigo Loans Ltd with immediate effect.

please cast my votes at the Annual general meeting on 29th Sept as follows:

Ordinary Resolutions

AGAINST 1. To receive the annual accounts of the Company and the reports of the Directors for the financial year ended 31 March 2020, together with the report of the auditor thereon.

AGAINST 2. To approve the Directors’ Remuneration Report for the financial year ended 31 March 2020 as set out on pages 69 to 82 (inclusive) of the Annual Report and Accounts 2020.

AGAINST 3. To re-elect Roger Lovering as a Director of the Company.

FOR 4. To re-elect Richard Price as a Director of the Company.

FOR 5. To elect Jonathan Roe as a Director of the Company.

FOR 6. To elect Gary Jennison as a Director of the Company.

AGAINST 7. To re-elect Nayan Kisnadwala as a Director of the Company.

AGAINST 8. To re-appoint KPMG LLP as auditor of the Company to hold office until the conclusion of the next general meeting at which accounts are laid before the Company.

AGAINST 9. To authorise the Directors to set the remuneration of the auditor.

AGAINST 10. That the Directors be and are hereby generally and unconditionally authorised for the purposes of Article 95.2 of the Articles of Association of the Company to incur and permit subsidiaries of the Company to incur and have outstanding borrowings (including any refinancing of such borrowings) up to a sum equal to seven times the aggregate of (a) the amount paid up on the issued share capital of the Company; and (ii) the total of the capital and revenue reserves of the Company and its subsidiary undertakings (the “Group”) as shown in the latest audited consolidated statement of financial position of the Group adjusted as appropriate pursuant to Article 95.1(i) to (v).
AGAINST 11. That any and all monies borrowed, or any other actions ccontemplated by Article 95 of the ....

Email:

Name:

Date & Location Of The AGM: To be held at 10.45 a.m. on 29 September 2020at Nova, 118-128 Commercial Road, Bournemouth, England, BH2 5LT

Share Dealing IG Account Number: Account ID:

ISA IG Account Number: Account ID:

TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES IN VOTE:

Please Can you confirm you have received my votes over the ex date as detailed below:
Please cast my votes at the general meeting on 29th Sept as follows:

Ordinary Resolutions

FOR 1. THAT James Benamor is appointed as a director of the Company with immediate effect.
FOR 2. THAT Nayan Kisnadwala is removed as a director of the Company with immediate effect.
FOR 3. THAT Roger Lovering is removed as a director of the Company with immediate effect.
FOR 4. THAT Glen Crawford is appointed as a director of Amigo Loans Ltd with immediate effect.
FOR 5. THAT Gary Jennison is appointed as a director of Amigo Loans Ltd with immediate effect.
FOR 6. THAT Richard Price is appointed as a director of Amigo Loans Ltd with immediate effect.
FOR 7. THAT Jonathan Roe is appointed as a director of Amigo Loans Ltd with immediate effect.

please cast my votes at the Annual general meeting on 29th Sept as follows:

Ordinary Resolutions

AGAINST 1. To receive the annual accounts of the Company and the reports of the Directors for the financial year ended 31 March 2020, together with the report of the auditor thereon.

AGAINST 2. To approve the Directors’ Remuneration Report for the financial year ended 31 March 2020 as set out on pages 69 to 82 (inclusive) of the Annual Report and Accounts 2020.

AGAINST 3. To re-elect Roger Lovering as a Director of the Company.

FOR 4. To re-elect Richard Price as a Director of the Company.

FOR 5. To elect Jonathan Roe as a Director of the Company.

AGAINST 6. To elect Gary Jennison as a Director of the Company.

AGAINST 7. To re-elect Nayan Kisnadwala as a Director of the Company.

AGAINST 8. To re-appoint KPMG LLP as auditor of the Company to hold office until the conclusion of the next general meeting at which accounts are laid before the Company.

AGAINST 9. To authorise the Directors to set the remuneration of the auditor.

AGAINST 10. That the Directors be and are hereby generally and unconditionally authorised for the purposes of Article 95.2 of the Articles of Association of the Company to incur and permit subsidiaries of the Company to incur and have outstanding borrowings (including any refinancing of such borrowings) up to a sum equal to seven times the aggregate of (a) the amount paid up on the issued share capital of the Company; and (ii) the total of the capital and revenue reserves of the Company and its subsidiary undertakings (the “Group”) as shown in the latest audited consolidated statement of financial position of the Group adjusted as appropriate pursuant to Article 95.1(i) to (v).
AGAINST 11. That any and all monies borrowed, or any other actions ccontemplated by Article 95 of the Company

The board of Amigo Holdings has clearly demonstrated that it wishes to block any takeover by James Benamor who asserts his wishes are to defend the rights of the shareholders and the core business.

Given the Amigo shareholders concerns that the Boards actions in the last 12 months have appeared to systematically destroy the share price from over 250p to its current level:

As a last resort and should the board fail to immediately address the concerns of the shareholders (Highlighted in Part 3), and decide to not immediately start representing the interests of the shareholders:

Shareholders have the legal Right To Demand A Vote To Put The Company Into Liquidation.

Current listed Book value is at 35p per share.

Many investors are now questioning How much will the book value be if the board are allowed to continue the destruction of the share price?

As you are aware there are many Private investors who have suffered greatly from the monumental and deliberate fall in this share price with Investors raising several legal issues relating to possible legal action available to them.

In addition to those matters discussed previously by shareholders, there is also a legal precedent for shareholders to hold a vote to put the company into liquidation whilst there is still a healthy unrestricted cash float over 150 Million Pounds plus company assets:

Under the Insolvency Act 1986, shareholders can adopt a special resolution for a voluntary winding-up. The shareholders will appoint a liquidator for the purposes of winding up the company and distributing its assets.

If the collection and distribution of assets takes more than one year, the liquidator must call a general meeting at the end of the year.

Given the concerns expressed by shareholders previously about the flagrant and deliberate attempts by the board to destroy the share price and continue to irresponsibly lend to “Key Workers” that subject to the FCA’s investigation can potentially be written off from the companies current assets:

Would it not be in the interests of the shareholders to adopt a special resolution for a voluntary winding-up before more damage can be done to the company & share price?

The company still has substantial assets with the book value currently listed at 35p per share.

Many also have extreme concerns around the negative impact on the share price, should the boards actions be allowed to continue, the board will be afforded further opportunity in the direction of insolvency and into the hands of KPMG.

Have they not demonstrated consistently to deliberately drive the share price down by 95% in less than 12 months?

Has all the assertions from shareholders regarding the boards negligence, default, breach of duty & breach of trust given them no other alternative than to undertake a shareholder vote to adopt a special resolution for a voluntary winding up of Amigo Holdings?

“THE LOAN RANGER” Part 3b Shareholders Considering Legal Action Against Board

Private Investors, please feel free to discuss these issues or indeed add any other breaches in law that you feel should be added to this list to be presented to the board.

Many have suggested legal action on this forum and all your input is noted and valued.

Initially, In accordance with section 338, Companies Act 2006 it is my understanding that Shareholders of a public company can require the company to circulate a resolution covering the concerns & legal issues discussed, to be voted on at the company's AGM where such a request is made.

Furthermore, with reference to section 314, Companies Act 2006:

Shareholders of either a private or public company can also require the company to circulate to other shareholders a statement of not more than 1,000 words on a matter referred to in a proposed resolution (or other matter) to be dealt with at the meeting.

There have been many concerns, questions and opinions raised by members of this private investors forum over the last year, their assertions are that the board are demonstrating an ongoing and classic case of negligence, default, breach of duty & breach of trust against the shareholder by deliberately attempting to drive the Share price down.
Private Investors, please feel free to discuss these issues or indeed add any other breaches in law that you feel should be added to this list to be presented to the board.

It would be welcomed if the board could respond to and address these concerns without forcing shareholders to take further action:

1. Continuing loans to “Key Workers” deemed “Irresponsible” and under investigation by the FCA during the lockdown under the same basis and affordability checks that he FCA were investigating
2. Endangering the solvency of the company continuing loans from the unrestricted cash in excess of 150 M for “Key Workers” during and without a resolution to the FCA investigation.
3. Further endangering the company share price, prior to rectifying said issues raised by the FCA.
4. Incurring severe financial costs to the shareholder by the decision to not challenge the FCA and to discontinue loans to the general public.
5. Demonstrating a double standard with the FCA that the Core Business Loans are NOT SAFE BUT “Key Worker” loans ARE SAFE.
6. If the boards assertion is that the FCA issues were resolved for the “Key Worker” loans then the board are wilfully negligent in discriminating against the general public by not allowing them to apply for loans during lockdown, particularly impacting the core business (Share price) and discriminating against those that work from home with valid guarantors.
7. Company falsely stating that there was a going concern issued in a public notification (RNS) to have a deliberate negative impact on share prices, whilst simultaneously allowing “irresponsible” loans to “Key Workers” and purchasing shares and drawing excessive salaries & expenses including during lockdown.
8. Consistently responding to social media chat mindful that this would certainly have a negative impact on share price & on one occasion resulting in over 30% drop in Share Price.
9. Suspected Fraud in relation to their own auditors stating 5% of customers were refunded where as the true figure was 95%
10. Initiate a Formal request to appoint and remove the company’s auditors in light of suspicions of Fraud.
11. Gross negligence In managing corporate assets specifically in relation to not paying off bonds.
12. Purchasing shares to personally benefit from the market 13. Manipulated reduced share price.
14. Board making false statements & threatening the solvency of the company should James Benamor be re elected as CEO to defend the shareholder & execute his duty to the shareholders under as outlined in the Companies Act 2006.

The growth business model for Amigo was simple and easily understood:

Ignoring business costs for the moment, In principle with 49% interest on loans, for every 2 loans that are successful paid by customers the company can potentially help 3 more people with loans to start their new business or buy a car to commute to work with.

As long as the company gave more in profits than it took, its growth potential is guaranteed (Whether this was national or internationally), hence why so many invested their pensions here.

In essence Amigo was a cash cow, healthily producing milk.

The real “Elephant In the Room here” seems to be:

Is the board now more interested in carving up this milk producing cow into a nice fat steak each with a golden handshake and guaranteed salaries and perks by destroying the business and subsidising the governments employees (Key Workers) and giving debt amnesty to thousands more, with the bill being paid for by the shareholders?

Is it not apparent that the only people earning money from Amigo now is the Board and the government who do not have to fund the Key Workers and fund those on a debt amnesty due to the impact of their lockdown?

Can anyone explain why the core business and peoples pensions have been unlawfully destroyed in this process whilst allowing “Key Worker” loans to continue?

Is this a clear case of negligence, default, breach of duty & breach of trust against the shareholder with their pensions invested in Amigo?

Whilst the board has stated it would be a criminal act for James Benamor to purchase more than 20% of the company to defend the rights of the public and shareholders.

Are the real criminals “The Board” themselves?

This board and the FCA’s actions may be wonderful for those who took out loans and “Key Workers” but what about those with their pensions invested in Amigo Shares?

Do the shareholders have any legal rights?

Are they catered for, or are most of them too old to demonstrate on the street or take legal action?

ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS ADMIRABLE THAT THE FOUNDER JAMES BENAMOR APPEARS TO BE “LOAN RANGER” DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF THE SHAREHOLDER WITH THEIR LIFELONG SAVINGS INVESTED IN AMIGO AS A PENSION.

THIS MESSIANIC BELIEF OF THE SHAREHOLDERS IN JAMES BENAMOR MUST BE A GREAT BURDON ON HIM.

WITH MANY INVESTORS NOW QUESTIONING THE BOARD WITH THE OVERWHELMING FEELING THAT THEY HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT, IN DEFAULT & IN BREECH OF THEIR DUTY AND TRUST WITH THE SHAREHOLDERS.

THE VAST MAJORITY ARE NOW ASKING IF IT IS NOW TIME FOR THE SHAREHOLDERS THEMSELVES TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE BOARD?

IN FACT SHOULD JAMES NOT BE RE ELECTED AS FCO, SOME ARE NOW QUESTIONING WHETHER A SPECIAL RESOLUTION FOR A VOLUNTARY WINDING UP OF AMIGO HOLDINGS SHOULD BE VOTED IN BY THE SHAREHOLDERS TO PREVENT THE BOARD INFLICTING MORE DAMAGE TO THE COMPANY.

The current book value is 35p

Many private investors who bought into this company less than a year ago at over 250p with a sound business model pre COVID, who may well have invested their lifelong savings as a pension and who now find themselves facing bankruptcy in their retirement, if as pensioner they have managed to escape the ravages of COVID.

For these investors Amigo Loans was a sound business to invest their pensions with healthy growth.

Is it possible that the board is no longer working for the shareholders but for the FCA who’s agenda is based upon the needs or desires of the government to facilitate softening the blow of their enforced lockdown by allowing whoever had a loan, a permit to not honour that agreement?

Would these actions result in the government not having to bail out thousands of “Key Workers”?

Is this in the interests of the Shareholder to come to such an outrageous and unlawful agreement?

Is Amigo Holdings now an instrument of the government to allow those who find themselves in financial hardship due to the governments lockdown a debt amnesty including all the new “Key Worker Loans” ?

In addition to the payment holidays for existing customers, has the government & FCA & the board pre planned for the subsequent defaults of loans due to people no longer having their jobs due to their lockdown?

Are the “Key Worker” Loans that have been permitted in anticipation of the fact that these loans WILL NOT be honoured ?

Is the government taking financial responsibility for their actions regarding the lockdown or have they passed the financial burden to the shareholder with their pensions invested in Amigo to foot the bill and pay for the consequences of their actions?

If James Benamor is not reinstated to uphold his duty to protect the shareholders and the publics right to inclusion with loans and not be discriminated in favour of “Key Workers”:

It would appear that the Private Investors feel that he boards negligence, default, breach of duty & breach of trust has given them no other alternative than to take legal action.

The board of Amigo Holdings has clearly demonstrated that it wishes to block any takeover by James Benamor who asserts his wishes are to defend the rights of the shareholders and the core business and the publics right to inclusion.

Without exception, every public statement (RNS) by the board has caused damage to the share price.

Whilst the ongoing dispute between the board and founder have been quoted by many as being a fascinating drama is this really helping the shareholders and members of the public?

Is it time for the shareholders to be proactive?

ARE THE BOARD AWARE THAT SOMEONE WHO HAD £250,000 PENSION FUND INVESTED IN AMIGO SHARES LESS THAN 12 MONTHS AGO IS NOW ONLY WORTH £13000

ARE THE BOARD AWARE THAT 1000’S OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DURING THIS CRISIS WORKING FROM HOME WITH ADEQUATE GUARANTORS ARE UNLAWFULLY BEING EXCLUDED?

Can the Board please explain why they have refused to put clarity on 4 most important issues affecting share price and causing great distress to shareholders and the general public:

1. If the FCA are investigating Amigo in relation to Affordability checks and “Irresponsible loans”, why is Amigo continuing “Irresponsible Loans” to “Key Workers” further endangering the companies solvency, unrestricted cash & the share value?
2. If these checks and procedures for the “Key Workers” are now adequate and safe for the company (and Shareholder) to lend too, why have these procedures not been applied to the core business of lending to the public (In addition to those working from home) ?
3. Why is it now safe to lend to “Key Workers” but Irresponsible to run the core business, Why are the FCA not being challenged on this double standard?
4. WHEN DOES AMIGO LOANS START BLOODY LENDING AGAIN?

Surely the board must know the date when they will restart lending, otherwise what are they being paid for!

These 4 questions have had the most profound impact on share price above all other issues, except for their own negative Share price de ramping campaign via public announcements (RNS) responding to social media.

Regardless of the fact that the boards responses and actions by responding to social media have had an unnecessary and extremely adverse effect on share prices.

It would appear that the board are hell bent on destroying share prices and the core business as a direct result of their personal differences with James Benamor (The Founder) in an extremely public way, by means of their actions & official RNS statements, to the detriment of the company and the shareholders.

The growth business model for Amigo was simple and easily understood:

Ignoring business costs for the moment, In principle with 49% interest on loans, for every 2 loans that are successful paid by customers the company can potentially help 3 more people with loans to start their new business or buy a car to commute to work with.

As long as the company gave more in profits than it took, its growth potential is guaranteed (Whether this was national or internationally), hence why so many invested their pensions here.

In essence Amigo was a cash cow, healthily producing milk.

The real “Elephant In the Room here” seems to be:

Is the board now more interested in carving up this milk producing cow into a nice fat steak each with a golden handshake and guaranteed salaries and perks by destroying the business and subsidising the governments employees (Key Workers) and giving debt amnesty to thousands more, with the bill being paid for by the shareholders?

Is it not apparent that the only people earning money from Amigo now is the Board and the government who do not have to fund the Key Workers and fund those on a debt amnesty due to the impact of their lockdown?

Can anyone explain why the core business and peoples pensions have been unlawfully destroyed in this process whilst allowing “Key Worker” loans to continue?

Is this a clear case of negligence, default, breach of duty & breach of trust against the shareholder with their pensions invested in Amigo?

Whilst the board has stated it would be a criminal act for James Benamor to purchase more than 20% of the company to defend the rights of the public and shareholders.

Are the real criminals “The Board” themselves?

This board and the FCA’s actions may be wonderful for those who took out loans and “Key Workers” but what about those with their pensions invested in Amigo Shares?

Do the shareholders have any legal rights?

Are they catered for, or are most of them too old to demonstrate on the street or take legal action?

ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS ADMIRABLE THAT THE FOUNDER JAMES BENAMOR APPEARS TO BE “LOAN RANGER” DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF THE SHAREHOLDER WITH THEIR LIFELONG SAVINGS INVESTED IN AMIGO AS A PENSION.

THIS MESSIANIC BELIEF OF THE SHAREHOLDERS IN JAMES BENAMOR MUST BE A GREAT BURDON ON HIM.

WITH MANY INVESTORS NOW QUESTIONING THE BOARD WITH THE OVERWHELMING FEELING THAT THEY HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT, IN DEFAULT & IN BREECH OF THEIR DUTY AND TRUST WITH THE SHAREHOLDERS.

THE VAST MAJORITY ARE NOW ASKING IF IT IS NOW TIME FOR THE SHAREHOLDERS THEMSELVES TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE BOARD?

IN FACT SHOULD JAMES NOT BE RE ELECTED AS FCO, SOME ARE NOW QUESTIONING WHETHER A SPECIAL RESOLUTION FOR A VOLUNTARY WINDING UP OF AMIGO HOLDINGS SHOULD BE VOTED IN BY THE SHAREHOLDERS TO PREVENT THE BOARD INFLICTING MORE DAMAGE TO THE COMPANY.

The current book value is 35p

Many private investors who bought into this company less than a year ago at over 250p with a sound business model pre COVID, who may well have invested their lifelong savings as a pension and who now find themselves facing bankruptcy in their retirement, if as pensioner they have managed to escape the ravages of COVID.

For these investors Amigo Loans was a sound business to invest their pensions with healthy growth.

Private Investors, please feel free to discuss these issues or indeed add any other breaches in law that you feel should be added to this list to be presented to the board.

Many have suggested legal action on this forum and all your input is noted and valued.

Initially, In accordance with section 338, Companies Act 2006 it is my understanding that Shareholders of a public company can require the company to circulate a resolution covering the concerns & legal issues discussed, to be voted on at the company's AGM where such a request is made.

Furthermore, with reference to section 314, Companies Act 2006:

Shareholders of either a private or public company can also require the company to circulate to other shareholders a statement of not more than 1,000 words on a matter referred to in a proposed resolution (or other matter) to be dealt with at the meeting.

There have been many concerns, questions and opinions raised by members of this private investors forum over the last year, their assertions are that the board are demonstrating an ongoing and classic case of negligence, default, breach of duty & breach of trust against the shareholder by deliberately attempting to drive the Share price down.
Private Investors, please feel free to discuss these issues or indeed add any other breaches in law that you feel should be added to this list to be presented to the board.

It would be welcomed if the board could respond to and address these concerns without forcing shareholders to take further action:

1. Continuing loans to “Key Workers” deemed “Irresponsible” and under investigation by the FCA during the lockdown under the same basis and affordability checks that he FCA were investigating
2. Endangering the solvency of the company continuing loans from the unrestricted cash of 130 M for “Key Workers” during and without a resolution to the FCA investigation.
3. Further endangering the company share price, prior to rectifying said issues raised by the FCA.
4. Incurring severe financial costs to the shareholder by the decision to not challenge the FCA and to discontinue loans to the general public.
5. Demonstrating a double standard with the FCA that the Core Business Loans are NOT SAFE BUT “Key Worker” loans ARE SAFE.
6. If the boards assertion is that the FCA issues were resolved for the “Key Worker” loans then the board are wilfully negligent in discriminating against the general public by not allowing them to apply for loans during lockdown, particularly impacting the core business (Share price) and discriminating against those that work from home with valid guarantors.
7. Company falsely stating that there was a going concern issued in a public notification (RNS) to have a deliberate negative impact on share prices, whilst simultaneously allowing “irresponsible” loans to “Key Workers” and purchasing shares and drawing excessive salaries & expenses including during lockdown.
8. Consistently responding to social media chat mindful that this would certainly have a negative impact on share price & on one occasion resulting in over 30% drop in Share Price.
9. Suspected Fraud in relation to their own auditors stating 5% of customers were refunded where as the true figure was 95%
10. Initiate a Formal request to appoint and remove the company’s auditors in light of suspicions of Fraud.
11. Gross negligence In managing corporate assets specifically in relation to not paying off bonds.
12. Purchasing shares to personally benefit from the market 13. manipulated reduced share price.
14. Board making false statements & threatening the solvency of the company should James Benamor be re elected as CEO to defend the shareholder & execute his duty to the shareholders under as outlined in the Companies Act 2006.

The board of Amigo Holdings has clearly demonstrated that it wishes to block any takeover by James Benamor who asserts his wishes are to defend the rights of the shareholders and the core business.

Given the Amigo shareholders concerns that the Boards actions in the last 12 months have appeared to systematically destroy the share price from over 250p to its current level:

As a last resort and should the board fail to immediately address the concerns of the shareholders (Highlighted in Part 3), and decide to not immediately start representing the interests of the shareholders:

Shareholders have the legal Right To Demand A Vote To Put The Company Into Liquidation.

Current listed Book value is at 35p per share.

Many investors are now questioning How much will the book value be if the board are allowed to continue the destruction of the share price?

As you are aware there are many Private investors who have suffered greatly from the monumental and deliberate fall in this share price with Investors raising several legal issues relating to possible legal action available to them.

In addition to those matters discussed previously by shareholders, there is also a legal precedent for shareholders to hold a vote to put the company into liquidation whilst there is still a healthy unrestricted cash float of 130 Million Pounds plus company assets:

Under the Insolvency Act 1986, shareholders can adopt a special resolution for a voluntary winding-up. The shareholders will appoint a liquidator for the purposes of winding up the company and distributing its assets.

If the collection and distribution of assets takes more than one year, the liquidator must call a general meeting at the end of the year.

Given the concerns expressed by shareholders previously about the flagrant and deliberate attempts by the board to destroy the share price and continue to irresponsibly lend to “Key Workers” that subject to the FCA’s investigation can potentially be written off from the companies current assets:

Would it not be in the interests of the shareholders to adopt a special resolution for a voluntary winding-up before more damage can be done to the company & share price?

The company still has substantial assets with the book value currently listed at 35p per share.

Many also have extreme concerns around the negative impact on the share price, should the boards actions be allowed to continue, the board will be afforded further opportunity in the direction of insolvency and into the hands of KPMG.

Have they not demonstrated consistently to deliberately drive the share price down by 95% in less than 12 months?

Has all the assertions from shareholders regarding the boards negligence, default, breach of duty & breach of trust given them no other alternative than to undertake a shareholder vote to adopt a special resolution for a voluntary winding up of Amigo Holdings?

The most interesting thing I found in the recent RNS (2020 Half Year Results) was Rolls Royce increasing their position in “Reaction Engines”!

“On 18 May 2020, the Group entered into an agreement to increase its shareholding in Reaction Engines Ltd by 8.1% to 10.1%”

With Boeing and Bae Systems already heavily Invested In Reaction Engines is there a pattern forming?

Despite clear Issues induced by Covid-19 and its monumental financial impact on RR, could the UK governments Golden ticket working in tandem with the United States government and Rolls Royce’s clear vision for the future indicate the most likely outcome for this business?

Is RR positioning themselves to be the worlds supplier of the hypersonic engine that will transform the Aviation & Space Sector and amongst other achievements London to New York in less than 90 minutes?

In the post Covid-19 era, surely 90 minutes from London to New York is preferable to 8 to 10 hours?

Moreover, Is it really possible to achieve Zero Carbon Emissions using clean fuels such as Hydrogen & hybrid electrical systems instead of Jet Fuel for a carbon and guilt free Aviation sector to completely remove dependence on fossil fuels?

With potential developments in planning with Boeing, Virgin Galactic, Boom Aerospace, Bae Systems to mention just a few, in addition to various military & Space applications such as Skylon:

Is a clean and bright future for the Aviation & Space Sectors spearheaded by Rolls Royce’s role to manufacture these engines a distinct possibility?

Ultimately, please do your own research but it does appear that the worlds biggest players in the Aviation and Space Sectors in addition to DARPA and the UK’s Ministry of defence are all taking orbital positions around Reaction Engines with a clear and unified vision in preparation for the clean hypersonic post Covid-19 era.

Perhaps the possibilities and impact of these plans on this & future generations, make these companies too big for us to allow them to fail?

Check (In Chess)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Black's king is in check by the rook.

A check is a condition in chess that occurs when a player's king is under threat of capture on their opponent's next turn.

A king so threatened it is said to be in check.

A player must get out of check, if possible, by interposing a piece between the threatening piece and the king, capturing the threatening piece, or moving the king to a square where it is no longer in check.

If the player cannot move out of check, the game ends in checkmate and the player loses.

Players cannot make any move that puts their own king in check.