LCRO 149/2020 WM v VE and DP (14 December 2021) [pdf, 361 KB]
...Mr VE would attend. [109] In his 25 March 2019 response, Dr WM’s lawyer noted the firm acted for the company which was “largely control[led]” by the four [Z] shareholders/directors who held 80% of the voting rights in each capacity. [110] He said the proposal was not in the company’s best interests, and bearing in mind the four [Z] shareholders’/directors’ control of the company it was “difficult to see why” the proposal was “necessary to avoid [the] significant...