Done already, as with the others. Thanks for bringing this unacceptable breach of privacy to our notice.
Printable View
Margaret Firth as an Pharmazen authorised person attached that Extensive Shareholder List.
Pharmazen have erred, not Companies Office or Link.
The list from Link that was posted and then deleted was in proper format. Full names and addresses are a requirement.
Margaret did OK but erred badly by not stripping out surplus info like email addresses. Here’s what needed -
Extensive shareholding
If your company has extensive shareholdings, you need to create and upload a separate document listing details of all share allocations and shareholders. This document should also be held as a record on your own share registry. It must include the full legal name and residential address of each shareholder.
"The only beef people could have is the email address - though the companies act doesn't define "address" so arguably could be street or email.
The rest is a function of formatting the data that comes From link Services. And that is a function of how people fill in their name and address details on their Account. "
My "little birdie" sent me the above.
I was "in good faith" updating post #212 page 15, on this thread,posted by some one else..
Thank you W69 for your constructive post.
We are getting there.!
Residential addresses in a prescribed format is a requirement. All public info. The Link list you posted seemed pretty proper ...Margarets spreadsheet is a bit of a mess
Margaret at Pharmazen should have been more careful with what she submitted ...like stripping out the non required stuff like email addresses.
I take it Margaret acts as Company Secretary or something.
Yes it is easy to see why people use custodial services,lawyers and accountants.However searching The Companies Office, you can find trusts and a lot of information.
Two of my friends, who are PAZ shareholders, found they were not on the list,so some good has come from posting the list.
It looks as though the only beef people can have is the including of email addresses,and that is not 100% clear ,[from what my "little birdie" said.my post #574].
Therefore the Skyline Enterprises list was acceptable.
Margaret at PAZ will get it right,whatever that is.
I have no problem with full information being shown. Not to derail a thread but recent experience with the Arbor group of forestry companies shows that it is almost impossible to get a list of shareholders from such a company, the trustee company involved, or even through approaches via govt regulatory bodies. Where incompetence or fraud is suspected it is incredibly difficult to get together a group of shareholders to demand answers from management &/or directors, plan concerted action for an AGM, or put together a class action
Patience has paid off for Iceman and myself, my order went at 26c and some of the iceman's at 25c, cool as.