Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 16 votes

What is 'Rich Energy'?


  • Please log in to reply
5456 replies to this topic

#4751 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,758 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 21 July 2019 - 18:26

Not a Twitter person- have they changed their name? From Rich Energy blah blah to just Haas F1 Team?

For a team name change they'll need to apply and have the other teams agree to the change to do it midseason.  I don't believe a chassis name can be changed mid season but the chassis is called a Haas VF19 so they won't need to change that.



Advertisement

#4752 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,792 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 21 July 2019 - 18:38

Sort of leaves a bad taste in the mouth to be honest.   

So you managed to get hold of a can of the elusive Rich Energy drink?



#4753 Rodaknee

Rodaknee
  • Member

  • 400 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 21 July 2019 - 18:53

Changing a team name.  I can't say I'm any the wiser after reading this from a RaceFans article about Force India changing to Racing Point.

 

Unlike Bernie, I believe LM are a bit more relaxed over issues created by outside forces - bankruptcy, idiot sponsors and the like.

 

 

The procedure for changing a chassis name is more complicated now than it was under the 2010-12 Concorde Agreement: then teams sought approval from the FIA and commercial rights holder (to ensure that any name was not ‘offensive’), and lodged applications with the F1 Commission. A vote of 18 votes (of 26) approved the application, and historic performance was recognised.

Since the start of 2013, when bilaterals superseded the Concorde Agreement, the process is superficially considerably simpler as these agreements specify that only the prior approval of the commercial rights holder is required for change of chassis name.

However the complicating factor is that the bilaterals variously refer to carry-over clauses from Schedule 10 of the 2010-12 Concorde Agreement, which in turn refer to Formula 1 Commission approval. Which overrides which – commercial rights holder or carry-over clauses?

A source with knowledge of the situation suggests it would be “prudent to obtain approval from both CRH and Formula 1 Commission for any change of chassis name”, and pointed to the example of Marussia, which underwent this process when the team emerged from administration and morphed into Manor GP. Otherwise, they warned, there could be legal repercussions – of which Racing Point Force India has had more than its fill recently…
 

 

https://www.racefans...-not-so-simple/



#4754 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 19,152 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 July 2019 - 18:53

For a team name change they'll need to apply and have the other teams agree to the change to do it midseason.  I don't believe a chassis name can be changed mid season but the chassis is called a Haas VF19 so they won't need to change that.


I don’t think any team has ever had any problem changing their name when a sponsor has changed.

#4755 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 19,152 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 July 2019 - 18:54

Changing a team name.  I can't say I'm any the wiser after reading this from a RaceFans article about Force India changing to Racing Point.
 
Unlike Bernie, I believe LM are a bit more relaxed over issues created by outside forces - bankruptcy, idiot sponsors and the like.
 

 
https://www.racefans...-not-so-simple/


None of that applies because Haas won’t have to change their chassis name.

#4756 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,758 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 21 July 2019 - 19:16

I don’t think any team has ever had any problem changing their name when a sponsor has changed.

It's the FIA entrant name and not so much a sponsor.  IIRC change of the entrant name requires approval as that is the name with which they score points I could see both Renault and Racing Point blocking it given the chance.



#4757 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 19,152 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 July 2019 - 19:23

It's the FIA entrant name and not so much a sponsor.  IIRC change of the entrant name requires approval as that is the name with which they score points I could see both Renault and Racing Point blocking it given the chance.


But I don't know of any occasion when that hasn’t been allowed. Examples include Ferrari having to drop Marlboro in 2011 and Renault themselves when ING dumped them when the Singapore mess became public 2009.

#4758 Maxioos

Maxioos
  • Member

  • 3,874 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 21 July 2019 - 19:30

Dan, any thoughts on my previous post? Just wondering if it was structured in a way where he could kill REL and retain the rights to the product/brand without getting himself in trouble for transferring stuff out of a company before handing it over to BDG...

 

I doubt it, don't you? For one, i doubt current judge would take this lightly and as a act of fraud. And, if like you describe is the plan, it most likely is fraud. That's not liable or something to say, such situation has to be fraud imo. can't imagine it isn't. And, for 2, now for sure not because he is personal a defender in the Whyte case and by that, all these so called "rights" are as value up to grab for Whyte/The Court.

 

Edit: Mostly because of the court order that's on the company. If there where no court procedures but only debt it could be a other case. I think it depends then mostly on amount debt reason to fight for or not, and most likely not. I think if value increases -fraud suspicion/counter reaction creditors- increases also.


Edited by Maxioos, 21 July 2019 - 19:35.


#4759 Mat13

Mat13
  • Member

  • 1,769 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 21 July 2019 - 19:51

For a team name change they'll need to apply and have the other teams agree to the change to do it midseason. I don't believe a chassis name can be changed mid season but the chassis is called a Haas VF19 so they won't need to change that.


Thanks, I meant their Twitter account though.

Advertisement

#4760 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,005 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 July 2019 - 20:33

He also told the court he was the sole owner. And Companies House that the shareholdings were him and he investors.

So I wouldn’t go on what he’s said at all with regards to the ownership of REL.

The Autosport article quotes the investors as claiming their shareholding % is much higher than the Companies House records suggest, as there has been a failure to file documents for a share issue.

 

And there we have it. I think we have overthought this whole thing.

 

I would say that it's just a pretty simple scam. My guess is that someone has raised money by 'selling' shares in the Rich Energy venture but has taken the money and not registered those shares. I'd suggest that money has funded everything that has happened to date. There's probably loads of people who think they own 49% of the company. I think the IOM and other offshore entities things have nothing to do with the Rich Energy project (apart from, maybe, being used to lend credibility to the operation, without having anything to do with it).



#4761 FatHarryWhite

FatHarryWhite
  • Member

  • 73 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 21 July 2019 - 20:43

I doubt it, don't you? For one, i doubt current judge would take this lightly and as a act of fraud. And, if like you describe is the plan, it most likely is fraud. That's not liable or something to say, such situation has to be fraud imo. can't imagine it isn't. And, for 2, now for sure not because he is personal a defender in the Whyte case and by that, all these so called "rights" are as value up to grab for Whyte/The Court.

Edit: Mostly because of the court order that's on the company. If there where no court procedures but only debt it could be a other case. I think it depends then mostly on amount debt reason to fight for or not, and most likely not. I think if value increases -fraud suspicion/counter reaction creditors- increases also.

As per your edit, I wasn't really thinking about this as a way to mitigate the court case. More of a way to retain rights if REL went down due to cash flow issues - and to do this, it would had to have been structured that way from the beginning.

I only started thinking about this from his tweets about retaining all rights. Now, those may be fantasy, so maybe I shouldn't have expended the...uh...energy thinking about it, but as others have already mentioned, transferring those rights out as the CEO of REL is a very bad idea. I was just spitballing a different way of achieving that goal (from his perspective).

He probably hasn't done it, I just thought it was worth asking the question.

Edited by FatHarryWhite, 21 July 2019 - 20:43.


#4762 Rodaknee

Rodaknee
  • Member

  • 400 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 21 July 2019 - 22:05

And there we have it. I think we have overthought this whole thing.

 

I would say that it's just a pretty simple scam. My guess is that someone has raised money by 'selling' shares in the Rich Energy venture but has taken the money and not registered those shares. I'd suggest that money has funded everything that has happened to date. There's probably loads of people who think they own 49% of the company. I think the IOM and other offshore entities things have nothing to do with the Rich Energy project (apart from, maybe, being used to lend credibility to the operation, without having anything to do with it).

 

Buying shares in a company isn't something done on a whim.  I'd expect anyone buying shares from RE would expect to have proof of purchase, the usual proof is a share certificate, failing that something signed by the seller and a witness.  There are Share Certificate Generators on the web.  Anyone foolish enough not to have obtained proof of purchase of shares has to be right plonker.

 

 

Please complete the form below to generate a share certificate using our simple template.

This resource is suitable for generating share certificates for a UK private limited company. The share certificate is an official company instrument that serves as a receipt for shareholders to indicate ownership of a company’s shares. The certificate can be authorised by signature or by the company’s common seal.
 



#4763 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,005 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 July 2019 - 22:40

Buying shares in a company isn't something done on a whim.  I'd expect anyone buying shares from RE would expect to have proof of purchase, the usual proof is a share certificate, failing that something signed by the seller and a witness.  There are Share Certificate Generators on the web.  Anyone foolish enough not to have obtained proof of purchase of shares has to be right plonker.

 

I bought some shares in the company I worked for a while ago. The Finance Director cobbled together a certificate because he through it would be nice to give me something. The reality was that it was a private company (just like Rich Energy Limited) and so there wasn't such a thing as a share certificate.



#4764 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 2,225 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 21 July 2019 - 22:55

Regarding Vin-X's claim that two years ago it bought 20% of Rich Energy Limited, it may have done, but a look at its most recent financial filings shows that:

- No such investment is stated on its balance sheet;

- the company's cumulative retained earnings are £6,193;

- its total net worth is £156,208; and

- Vin-X is the fourth name of this company. Its previous names were:

 

--Kestrel Holdings Limited,

--Safety Watch Limited, and

--Nerigrass Limited.

 

What those businesses might have had to do with wine investments is anybody's guess.

 

Although Vin-X's website suggests that it is a substantial firm, the filings suggest that this is a small-time operator on about the same scale as Rich Energy Limited. In 2017 it may have done a deal with Storey, but there is no way that Vin-X splashed out a large sum of money for a stake in REL, and no way that Vin-X was paying for the Haas sponsorship. The money simply is not there.

 

This article illuminates the dubious history of some of the people behind Vin-X:

https://www.thisismo...broker-men.html

 

 

 

 



#4765 danmills

danmills
  • Member

  • 1,174 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 21 July 2019 - 23:44

Is this not something linked to Storey changing the 100 shares to 1000 shares?

What may have been sold to investors by word of mouth as '20' might have been 20 of 1000, and not 20 of 100 aka 20% they thought they were getting.

Is this the reason for the delay and extension of time in filing the accounts? We're RE hoping to have the cheque cashed before those details were properly revealed?

 

I assumed CH was updated right away if shares were subdivided etc. 


Edited by danmills, 21 July 2019 - 23:58.


#4766 Rodaknee

Rodaknee
  • Member

  • 400 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 22 July 2019 - 00:33

Regarding Vin-X's claim that two years ago it bought 20% of Rich Energy Limited, it may have done, but a look at its most recent financial filings shows that:

- No such investment is stated on its balance sheet;

- the company's cumulative retained earnings are £6,193;

- its total net worth is £156,208; and

- Vin-X is the fourth name of this company. Its previous names were:

 

--Kestrel Holdings Limited,

--Safety Watch Limited, and

--Nerigrass Limited.

 

What those businesses might have had to do with wine investments is anybody's guess.

 

Although Vin-X's website suggests that it is a substantial firm, the filings suggest that this is a small-time operator on about the same scale as Rich Energy Limited. In 2017 it may have done a deal with Storey, but there is no way that Vin-X splashed out a large sum of money for a stake in REL, and no way that Vin-X was paying for the Haas sponsorship. The money simply is not there.

 

This article illuminates the dubious history of some of the people behind Vin-X:

https://www.thisismo...broker-men.html

 

Peter Shakeshaft has been involved with 27 or more companies, most of which are dissolved.  That's a bit of a clue about his skills as a "Business Entrepreneur", as he claims on his website.

Buying wine as an investment is like collecting farts for fresh air, it stinks and you'll have nothing to show for it. Investors (mugs) forget the salesman is on a high commission and you'll probably be conned into paying a lot of money for storage, 'cos you can't be filling your shed with XX boxes of booze.

 

A previous post claimed Vin-X had been to court, last week, and been awarded the value of the shares (sod all) and the return of the £20k from Billy Boy.  So they must have had proof of their claim.  They've lost big then, 'cos they could have put the money into the Post Office and made more and seen it again.



#4767 Rodaknee

Rodaknee
  • Member

  • 400 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 22 July 2019 - 00:35

I bought some shares in the company I worked for a while ago. The Finance Director cobbled together a certificate because he through it would be nice to give me something. The reality was that it was a private company (just like Rich Energy Limited) and so there wasn't such a thing as a share certificate.

 

So....  What are they worth today, more or less than you paid?  What dividend do you receive from them?  Who'd buy them is you needed the money?



#4768 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 2,225 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 22 July 2019 - 04:20

Is this not something linked to Storey changing the 100 shares to 1000 shares?

What may have been sold to investors by word of mouth as '20' might have been 20 of 1000, and not 20 of 100 aka 20% they thought they were getting.

Is this the reason for the delay and extension of time in filing the accounts? We're RE hoping to have the cheque cashed before those details were properly revealed?

 

I assumed CH was updated right away if shares were subdivided etc. 

There are different time requirements for informing Companies House, depending on what has changed, but the fundamental principle is that Companies House is a passive recipient of company information. Nothing gets updated unless the company secretary, director or designee submits the new information. In the case of Storey, it's a safe bet that he would not have been the most punctilious company director in history; pretty much anything could have happened and Companies House would not necessarily know about it.



#4769 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 2,225 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 22 July 2019 - 05:16

Peter Shakeshaft has been involved with 27 or more companies, most of which are dissolved.  That's a bit of a clue about his skills as a "Business Entrepreneur", as he claims on his website.

Buying wine as an investment is like collecting farts for fresh air, it stinks and you'll have nothing to show for it. Investors (mugs) forget the salesman is on a high commission and you'll probably be conned into paying a lot of money for storage, 'cos you can't be filling your shed with XX boxes of booze.

 

A previous post claimed Vin-X had been to court, last week, and been awarded the value of the shares (sod all) and the return of the £20k from Billy Boy.  So they must have had proof of their claim.  They've lost big then, 'cos they could have put the money into the Post Office and made more and seen it again.

That post re Vin-X was a link to a piece by Thomas Maher stating that the Court had awarded 20% of the shares in REL to Vin-X. I have seen no other report of such a ruling.

Going over the submitted accounts of Vin-X and REL for the period when this 20% sale supposedly took place (sometime between late 2016 and end-2017), there is nothing that suggests a transaction, unless Vin-X was recording it as (possibly convertible) debt and REL was reporting it as equity. That in itself would be odd. Believe it or not, at this time REL was using an accounting firm that appears to be on the level and professional; there is no reason to believe that REL's accounts for this period were inaccurate.

If the above contradictory items were indicative of a transaction between REL and Vin-X, it apparently had a putative value of roughly £400k and in return for the 20% REL got no money. Rather, it supposedly got advice from the geniuses at Vin-X on how to run a drinks business. Given the apparent (small) scale of Vin-X, not to mention that the wine business is not the soft drinks business, the long-term investment business is not the consumer perishables business, and investing in other people's long-established products is totally different from starting one's own business from scratch, it is hard to see why Storey would have thought that the nominal value of what he was getting from Vin-X would be worth anything like either 20% of his company or £400k. If they had been giving him £400k cash, it might have been a different story, but they weren't.

The other thing is that, a year after the $400k (very roughly) change in REL's balance sheet that might have been evidence of share ownership by Vin-X, REL submitted a Confirmation Statement showing the shareholders.

Apart from Storey's 64% and a couple of tiny pieces, the other shareholders were Brandsellers with 12% and Charlie Simpson and Robert Lee each with 10%. If Simpson and Lee were Vin-X, the numbers would fit, but I see no evidence anywhere that those two names are connected to Vin-X. Also, the claim would have been made in their names, not in the name of Vin-X.

We have found no evidence anywhere of what "Brandsellers" is, and 12% is not 20%.

I don't know that the above gets us anywhere, but given the highly dubious history of some of the people behind Vin-X (as described in the article linked above), as usual nothing to do with Rich Energy Limited can be taken at face value.



#4770 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,523 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 22 July 2019 - 05:53

So has anyone come across these guys?

Bernie Puz (Australasia)
Blake Farhoumand (US Territory)
Jesse Gordon (Art Director)

First few names that I came across. Only spent a minute searching, but I don’t remember anyone mentioning them before.

There seems to be a lot of people out there who claim to work for Rich Energy. They seem to be directors of certain territories, or have some function in the company. They all seem to be busy promoting it on social media (many post are very recent, and they often jump back and forward between the old and new logo).

#4771 FatHarryWhite

FatHarryWhite
  • Member

  • 73 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 22 July 2019 - 06:14

RE Australasia based out of the Gold Coast - that figures. I'd imagine (if Bernie P is more proactive about actually selling the stuff than Storey is) they'd find plenty of customers there.

That said, this isn't a great look, is it?
2vCD7pc.jpg

#4772 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 3,942 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 22 July 2019 - 06:20

From personal experience, I believe shares can only be increased if someone new comes to the table with a large sum.

I once had, wait for it...£10.00 invested, in one of these online estate agencies. I figured if it ever took off, I may pocket £50 one day. It was no more than I'd speculate on a horse.

Anyway, what did happen is a few years later one person put in a few hundred-thousand pounds. For whatever technical and legal reasons, this created tens of thousands of new shares, and legally forced the sale of my few hundred shares back to the company at the sum of £0.09 pence. I an not making this up.

So, from what I understand, some original shareholders may have lost in such a scenario, but only if significant new investment had been made.


.

Edited by Imperial, 22 July 2019 - 06:25.


#4773 Peat

Peat
  • Member

  • 4,355 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 22 July 2019 - 07:09

So has anyone come across these guys?

Bernie Puz (Australasia)
Blake Farhoumand (US Territory)
Jesse Gordon (Art Director)

First few names that I came across. Only spent a minute searching, but I don’t remember anyone mentioning them before.

There seems to be a lot of people out there who claim to work for Rich Energy. They seem to be directors of certain territories, or have some function in the company. They all seem to be busy promoting it on social media (many post are very recent, and they often jump back and forward between the old and new logo).

 

AFAIK, Storey sold the local distribution rights to them. Just like the richenergynl guy. 

blake.jpg

 

Also, AFAIK, he's just a bit of a wally. A self-styled entrepreneur with a very high opinion on himself :https://www.facebook...lake.farhoumand



#4774 Maxioos

Maxioos
  • Member

  • 3,874 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 22 July 2019 - 07:20

I bought some shares in the company I worked for a while ago. The Finance Director cobbled together a certificate because he through it would be nice to give me something. The reality was that it was a private company (just like Rich Energy Limited) and so there wasn't such a thing as a share certificate.

 

But you must have had some proof of owning the shares, hadn't you? Can't see it any other way.

 

I have had shares (5 years options to be precise) "gifted" by a boss 20 years ago, we got that in writing and a yearly "value" update.



#4775 player1s

player1s
  • Member

  • 239 posts
  • Joined: May 19

Posted 22 July 2019 - 08:14

So, Storey owes Vin-X shares. Supposedly didn't file other share transfers as claimed by some investors.

 

Surely, reality must catch up with him soon.



#4776 statman

statman
  • Member

  • 4,562 posts
  • Joined: December 15

Posted 22 July 2019 - 08:34

whenever I check this topic, I secretly hope Wild Bill has tweeted again.

 

Does this make me a bad person? 

 

:smoking:



#4777 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 13,531 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 22 July 2019 - 08:40

I don’t think any team has ever had any problem changing their name when a sponsor has changed.


Hasn’t Winow or whatever it was been removed from Ferrari this season

#4778 pacificquay

pacificquay
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 22 July 2019 - 08:41

For those questioning the credentials of Haas' legal representation, Daniel Ricciardo is using the same firm in defending the legal action by his ex manager.



#4779 Rodaknee

Rodaknee
  • Member

  • 400 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 22 July 2019 - 09:02

From personal experience, I believe shares can only be increased if someone new comes to the table with a large sum.

I once had, wait for it...£10.00 invested, in one of these online estate agencies. I figured if it ever took off, I may pocket £50 one day. It was no more than I'd speculate on a horse.

Anyway, what did happen is a few years later one person put in a few hundred-thousand pounds. For whatever technical and legal reasons, this created tens of thousands of new shares, and legally forced the sale of my few hundred shares back to the company at the sum of £0.09 pence. I an not making this up.

So, from what I understand, some original shareholders may have lost in such a scenario, but only if significant new investment had been made.


.

 

If a person/body owns 75% of the shares in a company, they can force all the other shareholders to sell their shares to them, at a price the new owner decides upon.  That's where you and thousands of others get stuffed all the time.  I've picked this up from the stupidity of a supporters of a premier league football club who saved the club, but only retained 20% of the shares.  They were unable to stop the spivs who obtained the other shares from flogging the club to some foreign 'investors'.  Fancy shares - remember Caveat Emptor.



Advertisement

#4780 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,523 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 22 July 2019 - 09:07

For those questioning the credentials of Haas' legal representation, Daniel Ricciardo is using the same firm in defending the legal action by his ex manager.


Interesting fact 👍

I guess being an ex F1 guy this is what he does. Specializing in F1 legal issues (which probably gives him a never ending supply of work)

#4781 Maxioos

Maxioos
  • Member

  • 3,874 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 22 July 2019 - 09:17

For those questioning the credentials of Haas' legal representation, Daniel Ricciardo is using the same firm in defending the legal action by his ex manager.


Where is that case about? I thought until last year or so, he never had a manager outside Marko/RBR.

#4782 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 3,942 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 22 July 2019 - 09:25

If a person/body owns 75% of the shares in a company, they can force all the other shareholders to sell their shares to them, at a price the new owner decides upon. That's where you and thousands of others get stuffed all the time. I've picked this up from the stupidity of a supporters of a premier league football club who saved the club, but only retained 20% of the shares. They were unable to stop the spivs who obtained the other shares from flogging the club to some foreign 'investors'. Fancy shares - remember Caveat Emptor.


I thought it worth a punt and lost.

I never knew the above and suspect few at my level of 'investment) would. Would you read a ton of legal docs you barely understand for a tenner punt? Nope!

And thanks to the rise and ease of share trading on the internet, through bank accounts etc, I bet this happens all the time. Was I scammed? Possibly. Again, for the sake of a tenner, I've never bothered losing time to look into it.

I liked their nice touch that you even had to send an SAE to claim your £0.09 payment by cheque. So, about £1.20 return postage!

Needless to say, my cheque is (metaphorically) still sat in their filing cabinet somewhere.

#4783 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 2,225 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 22 July 2019 - 09:45

From personal experience, I believe shares can only be increased if someone new comes to the table with a large sum.

I once had, wait for it...£10.00 invested, in one of these online estate agencies. I figured if it ever took off, I may pocket £50 one day. It was no more than I'd speculate on a horse.

Anyway, what did happen is a few years later one person put in a few hundred-thousand pounds. For whatever technical and legal reasons, this created tens of thousands of new shares, and legally forced the sale of my few hundred shares back to the company at the sum of £0.09 pence. I an not making this up.

So, from what I understand, some original shareholders may have lost in such a scenario, but only if significant new investment had been made.


.

Shares can be increased through a split, in which the number of shares outstanding increases but each shareholder's proportion remains the same. This is not unusual.

Shares can also be increased by selling to a new (or existing) investor any new amount of shares; it does not have to be a large amount.

UK law requires all shareholders to be treated "fairly", although that is subject to what is written in the particular company's articles of association. In the articles, there may be provisions that to most people would seem unfair, but it is normally the responsibility of the individual potential investor to read those articles before making an investment.

It is likely that you got shafted because the articles said that a 75% shareholder would be entitled to do what they did.



#4784 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 2,225 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 22 July 2019 - 09:50

If a person/body owns 75% of the shares in a company, they can force all the other shareholders to sell their shares to them, at a price the new owner decides upon.  That's where you and thousands of others get stuffed all the time.  I've picked this up from the stupidity of a supporters of a premier league football club who saved the club, but only retained 20% of the shares.  They were unable to stop the spivs who obtained the other shares from flogging the club to some foreign 'investors'.  Fancy shares - remember Caveat Emptor.

Owning 75% will give control over many things, but the controlling shareholder may not merely pick an arbitrary and derisory valuation to buy out the minority shareholders - unless the company's articles of association specified that such would be allowed.  ;)



#4785 FerdinandF

FerdinandF
  • New Member

  • 1 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 22 July 2019 - 09:56

Not sure if this is new information, but it seems the Dutch Rich Energy website has been updated with a message concerning the Rich Energy future.

 

 

Rich Energy zal niet de naam veranderen in Lightning Volt zoals William beweerd op social media.

Rich Energy blijft gewoon wat het is en zal er nu alles aan doen om William van het social media af te houden. William Storey is niet langer de CEO van Rich Energy en is er nu alles aan aan het doen om ons te dwarsbomen.

Inmiddels is er een nieuw management aangesteld

Alles wat er online gezet is en nog steed word gedaan, is de actie van William Storey alleen!

niet van het nieuwe management van Rich Energy Ltd in Engeland

 

Wel zal binnenkort het logo aangepast worden, ook dit is niet het logo zoals beweerd word op twitter door William Storey.

 

Meer nieuws zal snel volgen.

 

Translation:

 

Rich Energy will not change its name to Lightnig Volt, as WIlliam has been saying on socal media.

RIch Energy will just stay as it is and will try anything it can to keep William from the social media.

William Storey is no longer the CEO of RIch Energy and is now doing everything to thwart us.

In the meantime a new management has been put in place.

Everything what has been said or is being said online, is the sole action of William Storey! Not from the new management of Rich Energy Ltd. in England.

However, there will be a new logo soon, although isn't the logo that William Storey has shared on Twitter.

More news to follow soon.



#4786 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 13,531 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 22 July 2019 - 09:57

Peter Shakeshaft has been involved with 27 or more companies, most of which are dissolved.  That's a bit of a clue about his skills as a "Business Entrepreneur", as he claims on his website.

Buying wine as an investment is like collecting farts for fresh air, it stinks and you'll have nothing to show for it. Investors (mugs) forget the salesman is on a high commission and you'll probably be conned into paying a lot of money for storage, 'cos you can't be filling your shed with XX boxes of booze.

 

 

Actually investing in wine is a great idea on the basis that if the value goes up you make money, if it goes down you drink it!  :cool:

Admittedly I've had a dabble on BBX - fine wine values have gone up by 20% in the past year...



#4787 Maxioos

Maxioos
  • Member

  • 3,874 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 22 July 2019 - 10:02

Not sure if this is new information, but it seems the Dutch Rich Energy website has been updated with a message concerning the Rich Energy future.
 

 
Translation:


He doesn't know the legal rights/duties also I'm quite sure. "They" have started a new RE Ltd. That doesn't instantly gives the old RE Ltd. (Now lightening Volt) rights and ownership.

It also now is completely unclear (I think for them also) how this all will influence the court rulings.

#4788 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 13,531 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 22 July 2019 - 10:15

Regarding any "Lightening Volt" confusion... (mostly on twitter, but seen it a bit on here)

 

In simple terms, the difference between a COMPANY and a BRAND is that a COMPANY refers to the commercial organization that markets or produces products or services; BRAND refers to the image and “personality” a COMPANY applies to its products. As an example Proctor & Gamble is a COMPANY, Gillette is one of their BRANDS. Lightening Volt is a COMPANY, Rich Energy is their BRAND (yes technically there are Rich Energy companies as well but it's a brand, Lightening Volt is not. We won't EVER see Lightening Volt on anything other than letterheads I expect, least of all an F1 car. There is no plan to launch a Lightening Volt branded energy drink).



#4789 iSpeedFreak

iSpeedFreak
  • New Member

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: February 18

Posted 22 July 2019 - 10:31

So you managed to get hold of a can of the elusive Rich Energy drink?

 

I wanted to try what it tasted like. Went on their website. The cans are sold out apparently. I have to preoder it in quantity ranging 1-10 and they cost £40 each.  :drunk:  :drunk:  :drunk:  :drunk:

 

Eh? Do they custom manufacture on a pay as you need basis?  What about the 87 millions empty cans?  Such a waste of precious aluminium  :rotfl:  :rotfl:  :rotfl:  :rotfl:


Edited by iSpeedFreak, 22 July 2019 - 10:33.


#4790 ar1

ar1
  • Member

  • 187 posts
  • Joined: December 14

Posted 22 July 2019 - 10:34

From personal experience, I believe shares can only be increased if someone new comes to the table with a large sum.

I once had, wait for it...£10.00 invested, in one of these online estate agencies. I figured if it ever took off, I may pocket £50 one day. It was no more than I'd speculate on a horse.

Anyway, what did happen is a few years later one person put in a few hundred-thousand pounds. For whatever technical and legal reasons, this created tens of thousands of new shares, and legally forced the sale of my few hundred shares back to the company at the sum of £0.09 pence. I an not making this up.

So, from what I understand, some original shareholders may have lost in such a scenario, but only if significant new investment had been made.


.

 

I had a similar experience, although i didn't risk my own £10! 

 

I won 50 000 shares in themutual.net (an ISP during the tech boom that gave away shares) - added to my original 1000 shares - i had about £380 worth of shares. at some point the xompany was close to collapse and a new investor put in about £500 and millions of new shares were generated. The last share price i think i remember was 0.05p leaving my nest egg worth around £3.80 - never did cash them in :)



#4791 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 3,942 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 22 July 2019 - 10:43

Not sure if this is new information, but it seems the Dutch Rich Energy website has been updated with a message concerning the Rich Energy future.


Translation:


I don't get that at all. William Storey has never once posted to say RE will be renamed LV.

#4792 RichardF1fan

RichardF1fan
  • Member

  • 391 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 22 July 2019 - 10:57

I think that comes from when the RE twitter account  tweeted the  image of a lightning strike with 'coming soon..' 



#4793 Maxioos

Maxioos
  • Member

  • 3,874 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 22 July 2019 - 10:59

I don't get that at all. William Storey has never once posted to say RE will be renamed LV.

 

Possible he/they believed on of those fake accounts as real?

 

I doubt the Dutch guy has any clue what's happening and has happened.



#4794 Grayson

Grayson
  • Autosport digital product manager

  • 3,123 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 22 July 2019 - 11:17

The Rich Energy account is now retweeting right wing political stuff about Sadiq Khan and Philip Hammond rather than anything to do with energy drinks...



#4795 Peat

Peat
  • Member

  • 4,355 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 22 July 2019 - 11:38

Storey has a 'rich' history of tweeting pro-trump and pro-brexit stuff. 

[which should not be discussed further as the Mods will likely remove it]


Edited by Peat, 22 July 2019 - 11:39.


#4796 whitewaterMkII

whitewaterMkII
  • Member

  • 6,672 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 22 July 2019 - 11:47

So....  What are they worth today, more or less than you paid?  What dividend do you receive from them?  Who'd buy them is you needed the money?

I have extensive holdings in private firms that do business as REITs, Real Estate Investment Trusts, which buy and hold properties, in which I get a share in the rents, or dividends if you prefer. Just because they are 'private' companies and can't trade in an open market doesn't mean they are not legit. I also have no certificates as such, but none the less, they are 'shares'.

Dunno about how they are treated in the UK, but they are a pretty common investment in the US. The big pay-off is when these private holdings do go public, my private shares have paid off big when they do in the past. In my case, minimum buy in was $5k per share, not a few bucks as some above have bought.



#4797 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 12,395 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 22 July 2019 - 12:30

The Rich Energy account is now retweeting right wing political stuff about Sadiq Khan and Philip Hammond rather than anything to do with energy drinks...

Really not the cleverest of stuff to retweet if you are attempting to build a global brand. 



#4798 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 5,524 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 22 July 2019 - 12:43

A decade or so ago, I was asked through an intermediary to write a brief for a company that was interested in sponsoring motorsport. Not necessarily F1, mind you, but GT and perhaps LMP2 and LMP1, or whatever the classes were back then. My conclusion was: sponsoring touring cars or GT cars where the owner also drives the car; what one could call 'vanity'-projects, not a problem. But any organisation that exists purely for motorsport on itself, my advice was: don't touch it with a lead pole of thirty foot long except when it is a blue chip racing organisation like Penske in the States or Van Amersfoort-racing in the Netherlands. The chances to get bamboozled were just too great.

 

Now with the Rich sage, the situation is almost reversed. Perhaps today I would have been asked by a team itself to write a brief about accepting a sponsor or not. Amazing....  

 

PS: the company in question ultimately just placed hospitality units at some races in the UK and went bankrupt because of vulture hedge-funds. The irony....



#4799 DarthWillie

DarthWillie
  • Member

  • 2,380 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 22 July 2019 - 12:47

Really not the cleverest of stuff to retweet if you are attempting to build a global brand. 

I believe that point has past. i believe Storey is now purposely destroying the brand so no one can benefit from the name



Advertisement

#4800 phrank

phrank
  • Member

  • 1,151 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 22 July 2019 - 13:17

He just don't like PC stuff