Confirmation Statement of Shares

[REDMIKE]

Notification received from Companies House this morning that they have received FULL details of Shareholders of ECFC,it is a long read as it is 23 pages long.

I don't understand the reason for this as i understood Dr Dave was working on the issue regarding the shares.

 

[Colesman Ballz]

This is probably the result of the very long process of "tidying up" the share register. I know that it contained shareholders, including companies and organisations that have long ceased to exist for example. It would also form a very necessary step, to enable a future "rights issue".
Just guessing like, but suspect that this may have resulted from Dr Dave's efforts ? ?

 

[Terryhall]

For those that are so minded, the full PDF can be downloaded in the public domain here: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00097808/filing-history; unfortunately the PDF is not searchable (so it is a needle-in-a-haystack job if you were to look for a particular name) and also does not include addresses of the shareholders (which may hamper efforts to track down any legacy holders that have not themselves come forward.)

This does still seem to show a handful of names which I looked at a few years ago and find to be very odd. For example

Eagle Star Insurance (which no longer exists and is now part of Zurich Insurance);
Bass Brewers (which no longer exists, and is now Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) Ltd);
the Exeter City Police Benefit Fund (which also seems to not exist, but may have changed name to the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary Compassionate Fund);
Natwest Bank (which to continue the theme, doesn't exist, and may refer to National Westminster Bank plc, or may refer to one of the many NatWest named subsidiaries that are now renamed under the RBS banner)...

It also seems very odd that any of the above would have such small shareholdings in ECFC (typically 5 shares here, 15 shares there, etc.) - the only guess I could make that would make any sense is that these perhaps date back to the turbulent R&L years, and that the shareholdings were a means of settling unpaid invoices, and it may well be that none of these companies actually "know" at an insititutional level that they even hold these shares at all - although I take pains to point out that this is absolute guesswork on my part.

Good to see that there is still full transparency to the shareholder register, even if it does still seem to be an absolute nightmare to attempt to untangle the web of names within.

 

[LOG]

it may well be that none of these companies actually "know" at an institutional level that they even hold these shares at all

I believe this is a problem.

I won't say which just in case it's wrong but i think that one of the companies you've listed were approached about selling their shares but they said that as far as they were concerned they didn't own any.

My uncle is on there with his one share

 

[Boyo]

A similar document was published a year ago.