[Archived] New Companies House Document

[Glenn]

A new document pertaining to Rovers has just surfaced on Companies House, 

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00053482/filing-history/MzE3MjY2Mzg5MmFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

 

[Glenn]

From Stuarts original post in the finances thread


 

I must be reading this wrong...

Today Squire Sanders LLP have 75% share of the club?

But the second page say the statement cease to be true as of Monday 03/04?

A law firm who have history of selling football clubs?

http://www.squirepattonboggs.com/en/news/2013/07/squire-sanders-advises-on-the-purchase-of-fulham__

https://www.thelawyer.com/issues/online-january-2015/squire-patton-boggs-advises-on-sheffield-wednesday-sale-to-thai-seafood-businessman/

Dare we...?

[Dunnfc]

Making it way for the administrator expect a similar new name company to pop up

[Craigman]

From what I can tell, this is the new confirmation statements, this doesn't list all shareholders anymore, just the one with Significant Control. This states that Venkys London Limited have this control, with the registered office at Squire Sanders.

[AggyBlue]

Just now, Craigman said:

From what I can tell, this is the new confirmation statements, this doesn't list all shareholders anymore, just the one with Significant Control. This states that Venkys London Limited have this control, with the registered office at Squire Sanders.

So what does the 75% refer to?

Does this indicate one Rao has 75% and other Rao's 25% or all Rao's own 75% and someone else the other 25%.

[chaddyrovers]

Just now, Craigman said:

From what I can tell, this is the new confirmation statements, this doesn't list all shareholders anymore, just the one with Significant Control. This states that Venkys London Limited have this control, with the registered office at Squire Sanders.

Does this mean that One Venkys owned more than 50%?

Adminstration closer?

[Craigman]

If you look at other companies on companies house, if a person or company owns another company or 75% or more of that company, then they only need to show them as that figure, as they can make all the decisions. If they are 2 people of companies that own 50% each, then they both need to be shown, as no individual, or company can make all the decisions. It has all changed this last year. 

[AllRoverAsia]

Squires have acted for Venkys for years.

What is special about this form?

 

[Craigman]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Does this mean that One Venkys owned more than 50%?

Adminstration closer?

No, it just means that a company owns Blackburn Rovers, which is correct, Venkys London Ltd, who own more than 75%, therefore are the person/company with significant control.

[nathan_rovers1]

This document just says who owns the club and that it is true of 03/04/17- nothing to get excited or worried about!

 

[RV Blue]

Just now, Craigman said:

No, it just means that a company owns Blackburn Rovers, which is correct, Venkys London Ltd, who own more than 75%, therefore are the person/company with significant control.

So non story?

[Craigman]

Just now, RV Blue said:

So non story?

Correct, a non story.

[RV Blue]

Just now, Craigman said:

Correct, a non story.

Damn!

[Dunnfc]

I'd imagine they will still produce an annual return of all share holders? 

[AggyBlue]

Just now, Craigman said:

Correct, a non story.

Oh well, five minutes of hope quickly extinguished.

 

[Craigman]

This has replaced the Annual Return, so no need to.

[AllRoverAsia]

For a fraction of a nano-second sometime between 3-4-17 and 3-4-17 there was hope.

We need the Tardis.

[tomphil]

Back to what I heard a few months ago and posted on here the rumour one of them had sold some shares or something but it hadn't come out yet. Deffo came from someone who works with the club, maybe crossed wires or the old twisted grapevine but just like the Mrs D & Hubby thing and just like when the club sold TC out of the blue....

Everything happens for a reason.

[JHRover]

It just seems odd. From the minute they bought the club until about 18 months ago the story was always that control rested with a 4-way even split between Balaji, Venkatesh, Mrs Desai and Mr Desai, and that decisions could only be taken with all their agreement.

Then about 6 months or so ago a document was filed which only listed Balaji and Venkatesh as people with control, and they were both reported to hold more than 25% but not more than 50% of the shares each, which is very different from the original reported structure and makes no mention of Mr and Mrs Desai. This seems to fit in with the major cutbacks and change in running of the club and seems to suggest Mrs Desai and her husband had washed their hands of it.

Now a document has been filed which doesn't list any specific individuals, merely Venkys London Ltd, but that they continue to hold more than 75% of shares in the club, presumably still the 99% they have always owned.

The question is who owns the shares in Venkys London Ltd and who is in control of Venkys London Ltd. Is it still an equal 4 way split or is it Balaji now calling the shots and trying to pay the bills out of his own pocket?

[Glenn]

Won't VLL have to file a similar document at some point this year?

 

[Dunnfc]

2 minutes ago, Glenn said:

Won't VLL have to file a similar document at some point this year?

 

Same concept for VLL will just say Venkeshwra Hatacheries PVT as opposed to directs as they are the ultimate parent I suspect

[perthblue02]

What is the reason for the wording on Page 3

"Statement ceased to be true on 03/04/2017

The company has identified a registrable person in relation to the company but all the required particulars of that person have not been confirmed"

 

The bottom line appears on the 2016 submission but not the ceased to be true bit.

[PLJPB]

This document may have been filed in response to my chasing the club for the last 6 weeks for the 'Persons of Significant Control' register.

This is supposed to be a register of who makes decisions. The first filing for BRFC Ltd was 19/10/16 and stated that a person had been identified but all of their particulars had not been confirmed. I wanted to know who that person was and so contacted Companies House to check the rules. These things take time and we now finally have the statement.

It is interesting to me that we are now told Venkys London Limited are the decision makers but back in October they did not have their particulars. So Silvester/Cheston didn't know the correct name and address for Venkys London Limited!

What this means is that Venkys London Limited has control over BRFC Limited. The Venkys London statement says that Balaji & Venkatesh (Bling & confused) have control of the company - and so by default also over BRFC - by virtue of them each holding between 25% and 50% of its shares. VLL is wholly owned by Venkateshwara Hatcheries Private Limited (VHPL) in India so for the statement to be correct it would appear to me that Bling & confused must also have control over VHPL even though we have always been led to believe that sister Desai is the boss.

Something here doesn't feel right but then again that's nothing new under the Venkys rule.

[Dunnfc]

Top man pljpb 

[PLJPB]

Just to add........these are the various definitions of Persons with Significant Control:

A PSC is anyone in a company, LLP or SE who meets one or more of the conditions listed in the legislation. This is someone who:

• owns more than 25% of the company’s shares
• holds more than 25% of the company’s voting rights
• holds the right to appoint or remove the majority of directors
• has the right to, or actually exercises significant influence or control
• holds the right to exercise or actually exercises significant control over a trust or company that meets one of the first 4 conditions.

I find the one highlighted interesting. I would suggest that this could cover anybody or organisation that is not a legal shareholder but still holds the power. e.g shadow directors, third party owners. Not that I am suggesting that this should be the case with BRFC or Venkys London Limited because whoever made the statements to Companies House will have taken into account that they are legally obliged to make the correct statements.