The chairman of the Avocet group of businesses has stepped up his strident campaign against dissident investors by threatening to expel them from the company before selling their shares to the highest bidder.
But Martin Frost's ultimatum over alleged breaches of the Avocet Natural Capital (ANC) Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) has been branded as ludicrous and worthless by an authority on privacy regulations.
Mr Frost has revealed how he rejected an offer of £25 million from a multinational to quit Avocet and take the group's 'disruptive technology' concepts to them. A similar offer was apparently made to his fellow director Bob Jennings, the chemist credited with the development of the 'avocet' fuel additive.
But in a letter to Avocet's 650 shareholders titled 'The dumping of delinquents' Mr Frost has declared that the company "will not be deflected by bribery or noise".
In a hard-hitting diatribe against those with negative opinions of the business which has yet to deliver concrete results after six years, Mr Frost wrote: "The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) confirmed that over 120 ANC Plc shareholders have now made multiple complaints concerning the activities of the purported Avocet Shareholders Forum.
"Furthermore, Avocet shareholders have complained to the ANC Plc directors that it is obvious that some shareholders do not believe in ANC Plc’s humanitarian objectives which are clearly set out in ANC Plc’s Articles of Association. It is also blatantly apparent that ‘retired journalists’ such as Mr. Bill Chisholm [owner of this blogging website] are not cognisant of ANC Plc’s articles either."
Avocet Natural Capital has already levelled allegations of possible criminal activity at the proprietor of Not Just Sheep & Rugby apparently linked in some way to the Data Protection Act. We have also declined an offer from Mr Frost to sign a NDA which, it seems, would enable us to share Avocet's innermost secrets as long as we did not report on them.
To quote a recent article in the magazine PR Week: "To ask a journalist to sign a NDA before you reveal something news-worthy to them is completely illogical. The very words 'non-disclosure' are completely contrary to the reason journalists exist - to 'disclose news’ and to bring information into the public domain."
The latest attack on 'dissident' Avocet investors continues: "The bulk of ANC Plc shareholders, by value and number object to the repeated blatant Orr lies, half-truths and negativity opined on the purported Avocet Shareholder’s forum and blogs, such as Bill Chisholm’s.
"Upon legal advice there needs to be a parting of the ways – those shareholders who have breached their NDA’s are asked to leave by November 30th, 2020 or under ANC Plc’s constitution they shall be expelled. These miscreants will be assisted to their exit and their shareholdings will be taken up by others who truly share Avocet’s humanitarian philosophy. For the avoidance of doubt, after December 1st, 2020 ANC Plc shares held by the expelled can be sold by court order to the then highest bidder."
However, such a course of action was immediately dismissed by an experienced individual who contacted Not Just Sheep & Rugby after reading the shareholder letter.
He commented: "Mr Frost's suggestion that a non-disclosure agreement that was voted on at an annual meeting is binding on all the shareholders is absolutely ludicrous. The shareholders are not a football club where the members are required to operate under strict rules and wear the same jerseys.
"They are individual investors whose only connection is that they gave money to Martin Frost's business. If he has a legal opinion stating that the non-disclosure agreement is binding on all shareholders, including those who did not attend the meeting, those who did not vote in favour of the agreement, and those who bought their shares after the meeting and therefore are completely unaware of any non-disclosure agreement, all of whom have not signed the NDA signifying acceptance he should produce this legal opinion."
And our contributor added: "Even if the NDA did apply, which it does not as explained above, then the penalty should have some relation to the loss experienced by the other party. What has Avocet lost by a shareholder forwarding a letter to someone else? Can the company prove these financial damages?"
No comments:
Post a Comment