Who 'owns' the Company

bowlhead99

castle96 wrote: »

. Will be a delicate task to drop them into this. Could be seen as 'vengance' on my part... probably is ! Oh to see his face when (with someone qualified there), A D E vote against BC.
,

Getting close to when I must put up or shut up. Don't feel I can say nothing (despite my 'motives'). Just wish I know why F did ti, for certain

As F has had the competence to build a 40-property portfolio and the generosity to gift the economic rights of a portion of that portfolio to each of the five of them, it is probably counterproductive for the five owners (who are presumably not property moguls themselves) to start arguing with each other about the best way to run the holding company.

It seems the father has distributed these property assets to his kids (inc stepkids) by wrapping the assets up in a company in which the kids have economic rights.You might be rubbing your hands with glee about how you'll wreak your vengeance against the father who you no longer like by putting the cat among the pigeons and dsrupting the smooth running of that company. Yay for you. Perhaps that thought makes you feel like you would be smugly self satisfied and proud of yourself that you had disrupted the harmony of the property business which your children co-own. An outsider with limited information might think that bonkers, but it takes all sorts to make the world go round.

It seems feasible that if the update to the register of members has only recently been done and filled at Companies House, F has not got around to telling D and E that the company has issued shares to them, and hopes to do so as part of some nice announcement at Christmas or the end of the year. Maybe he has already told the previous owners that they will be diluted and will compensate them in some other way, or maybe it has always been the plan to bring DE into the ownership of this particular part of the property empire, so that the initial owners were well aware and comfortable with it.

Danm's comments 'why don't they ask' are pertinent. Perhaps they already know because he told them and they didn't tell you because you would get upset, vengeful or fear the worst as you don't trust that he could ever have any good motives. If they don't already have an explanation from him and only know they are listed as members of the company because you or someone else alerted them - no harm in them asking.

As it is a limited company their liability is limited and they are not on the hook for the company's debts or other liabilities if they haven't given personal guarantees. So suddenly owning shares in the business is a win for them. Most likely the structuring of this part of the portfolio into its own company was done for corporation, personal or inheritance tax planning purposes, or to insulate these assets from risks attaching to the wider portfolio when taking finance on the assets (commercial mortgages and/or loans).

castle96

All fine words Bowlhead/good advice/good karma