Welcome to the Rpoints Forums.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 14 of 14
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: LV Looking for Merger or Disposal

  1. #11
    BiB
    BiB is offline
    Contributor BiB
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    855
    Rep Power
    0
    Which bit?

    Go to https://www.lv.com/members/a-future-mutual and then scroll down to the Member Statement booklet.

    Page 10 of the booklet (6 of the PDF) states under "What would stop the conversion going ahead":

    If, of the members who vote (my bolding), less than 75% approve the Special Resolution we wouldn’t be able to proceed with the conversion. There are also specified and limited circumstances which would prevent the Prudential Regulation Authority from confirming the conversion. These are:
    ■ If important information, that is relevant for members to make an informed decision, was missing or not available to all members eligible to vote.
    ■ The vote doesn’t represent the views of all members eligible to vote.
    ■ Some relevant requirements of the Friendly Societies Act or our Rules have not been fulfilled.

    Then go to page 17 of the booklet (9 of the PDF) and it talks about the change to rule 13.8. The whole of page 17 talks about this, but to my mind is explicit that historical turnout is ~5% and the purpose of the rule change is to move from the current situation where a demutualisation requires 50% turnout + 75% in favour to a situation where the turnout requirement is much lower + 75% still in favour.
    planteria likes this.

  2. #12
    Expert planteria will become famous soon enough
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    going down the wednesbury road
    Posts
    4,060
    Rep Power
    112
    it was fresh in my mind, and what i had in mind was different to how you summarised..

    if historical turnout is as low as 5% they aren't going to get enough voters to vote to change the voting system so they don't need so many voters.
    BiB likes this.

  3. #13
    BiB
    BiB is offline
    Contributor BiB
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    855
    Rep Power
    0
    I think the confusion is that they talk about two types of "conversion".

    The type of conversion in Vote 1/page 10 is to a (mutual) company limited by guarantee. As far as I can see if 4 members voted and 3 were in favour, this would pass as the 75% criteria would be met. There is no turnout requirement.

    The discussion on page 17 is a hypothetical conversion from the mutual company limited by guarantee to a demutualised entity. Under the current rule 13.8, they need 50% turnout + 75% in favour for this specific type of vote. My reading is that changing the rule 13.8 would be similar to Vote 1 - i.e. no turnout requirement, and a precusor to making demutualisation a feasible option wrt turnout.

    I still feel this all looks positive. If they were proposing restricting voting to a membership committee like some mutuals then I would be concerned!

  4. #14
    Expert planteria will become famous soon enough
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    going down the wednesbury road
    Posts
    4,060
    Rep Power
    112
    a membership committee, ie. a delegation? by far the best system imo.
    so you feel it looks positive, from the perspective of someone looking for a windfall?
    and have you voted 'For' their proposals?


 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts