Main Menu

last nights board meting, and the fallout

Started by gadget, September 22, 2016, 00:12:54

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

gadget

having been a member for more years that I can remember, I think it is time to post.
There is definitely a lot of confusion over what is happening within the club and why Phillip and Meyrick are doing what they are doing.
The company was set up to protect the then members of the club committee. If it now turns out that the board of directors are now vulnerable to legal issues, we do need to alter the situation
However we surely cannot have a real problem until the start of next season.
We have been running on this system for several years now and if everything was not correctly presented to companies house , would they not have picked up on this? We can't be the first club to register with them.

I like many others have submitted a letter to show my vote of NO CONFIDENCE  in the Board.
I think that like many other members, it is not so much a vote of no confidence in the Board, it is a vote of " lack of understanding of what Phillip and Meyrick are playing at".

Now I quite like Phillip, but sometimes he has been known to do things for his own benefit that were maybe "not cricket". I don't think I am speaking out of turn to say that a lot of people within the club don't trust him.
To then partner him up with Meyrick all of a sudden, and drop into a board meeting was a bit of a surprise to even most of the Board.It does obviously start to make members wonder what is going on.

The FACT that they prepared C1's beforehand secretly and then suddenly announced that they would be racing at Angelsey is obviously going to make all club members suspicious.

Most members have a feeling that there is a secret agenda that will present itself at some time, probably too late.

If Phillip and Meyrick Have the ideal plan/ solution to running the Classic 2CV Racing Club, why the hell didn't they come forward with the masterplan and present it to the members at either the AGM or at an informal meeting.

Unfortunately the way this has been forced onto the members, it is no great wonder that they are revolting. Everyone is suspicious of what is intended.
I would ask that Phillip and Meyrick present a letter of intention to be read before the Agm so that the members can fully evaluate their position.
Without a doubt they should put themselves up for election to the Board based on their intentions.

If they are so keen to represent the Classic 2CV Racing Club, then why were they so keen to run C1's at Angelsey??
Meyrick has several "2cv's, so why not run them?
If they want to run a Citroen C1 Series, well that's fine. Team Gadget Racing will build one and enter. But for the moment let's concentrate on promoting the club we have.
WE do have a very good field that takes part in the sprint meetings.
If the problem is the 24 hour race , we need to sort that out.
It appears that the venue of Angelsey is not the major concern, it is the date and this year , the start time.
I'm sure that if the race weekend can be organised so that it is on a Bank holiday, that would present fewer problems for the teams involved.

In the near future I think it would be sensible if parties involved lay their cards on the table and tell the truth.
We don't want to end up in a situation that likens our club to the Labour party.If we have people in charge and on the board, the members need to be able to trust them and trust that whatever they do is in the best interests of The Classic 2CV Racing Club.
If we have people on the Board who have a hidden agenda and won't be up front, we are going to have a situation that is totally unworkable and we will just get into the same situation year after year.

Please, for the sake of the club let's get this sorted out. If Phillip and Meyrick want to race C1's or set up something else, that's fine, but before either an EGM or SGM I think some people need to confirm what it is they want to race .

I want to race a 2CV. I am racing a 2CV HYBRID at Spa.  I have absolutely no intention of racing a Citroen C1
W.









philip myatt

#1
Hi Wayne
Thank you for raising your questions and concerns, I will endeavour to answer everything that you query and hopefully more as well.

Firstly the Company set up, I will not go into detail here as I know that it is going to be covered in full detail elsewhere, but from my personal position I do not want to accept unlimited liability. You and I were both part of the board when this was introduced in 2008 and I for one thought that it had been done correctly: it turns out that it wasn't and some changes are required to ensure that what was intended in 2008 can now be properly implemented to protect members in the way they expected.

For me personally you are quite correct in some regards, it is true that in the past I ended up almost single-handedly running and organising the club, primarily because no one else would step up to the plate. This situation creates the possibility of many accusations and that position should not be allowed to occur, the workload must be shared; on getting back involved I have been very clear that I have absolutely no intention of getting back to that; and that is primarily why Meyrick was asked to chair the board, not me.

As regards the events of this year I think it would be helpful to summarise what has happened in date order.

1) Early in the year I, like many others it would seem, were concerned about lack of information surrounding the championship and 24hr dates, costs announcements and general organisation. I spoke to a number of people at Oulton Park to see if anyone could shed some light and what needed doing. Pete suggested that I should get involved in the organisation of the championship and the 24hr for 2017, there was probably not much that could be done about 2016 at this stage. He was concerned that I had previous history and was not someone who everyone would feel comfortable with but the fact that I had done it before and it was known that I could get results eventually swayed the decision as it was felt that the most important thing was to get the action.

2) Discussions over the next few weeks with the Board formalised my offer of help with 2017.

3) I then started to try and establish exactly where we were at, and how best to move forwards. I had a number of meetings with Ian Watson to try and work out the best way to be able to get dates and circuits in place as early as possible.

4) Middle of May – In conversation with Caryl he told me that he has bought a C1 and was getting it track prepared: now this was something of a shock, we had previously had nights drinking under an awning in the paddock putting the world to rights and coming up with bright ideas, as we all do, including putting a C1 engine and gearbox into a 2CV instead of the BMW.  Caryl had decided that this would be a big engineering job but led him think about the C1 as an entity on its own. Whilst we had discussed this option I wasn't aware that he was actually going to build one. He had decided that the C1 could make an ideal trackday car to replace his Porsche. He felt the only way to see if our thoughts were correct was to build one and see what happened. So in the same fashion as he did with the UK Hybrid he started to build it.
The next step was to track test. This happened at Mallory at the end of May and Caryl kindly invited me to be there. Caryl, Kris Tovey and I drove the car that day and felt that as a package it had potential.

5) Early June – I was approached by Meyrick to see if I was prepared to work with him in 2017 on the board as he had been approached to stand for Chairman, he felt that he may not have the time to do all the day to day stuff but was happy to stand if I would assist with the daily duties.

6) 21 June Board Meeting – I was asked to attend to present the progress on arrangements and organisation for the 2017 season. Meyrick was present to be introduced to the Board.
It was something of a shock to find that at this late stage there were only 6 current 2CV entries for the 24hr with vague numbers for Euro's and mini's. A projected loss in excess of 30k was being discussed and the consideration of cancelling the event, which in my opinion was not an option. Not running it could seriously jeopardise its future.

The board discussed many options to boost entries.  Firstly, it considered the UK Hybrid; this to my complete shock was not accepted by the board as suitable as a guest class at the 24hr. (Neither Meyrick nor I voted on this or anything else only being invited guests).  
Following this vote, I detailed to the board the existence of Caryl's C1 and the data that testing had provided. The board fully discussed the idea and concept of the C1 and then voted, bearing in mind that they had already decided not to allow the Hybrid you can imagine what I expected the outcome to be. As is now recorded history, it was accepted with a unanimous vote to be a guest class at the 2016 24hour.

Then came the bombshell, Mervyn announced to the Board that it was his intention to resign at this meeting and that there were three parties who had expressed interest in the Chairmans position, Ash Carter, Martin Harold and Meyrick (with me helping him).  Mervyn then asked each candidate to present themselves to the board to see who it was felt should be considered.  Ash hadn't turned up, Martin withdrew as he said he had only offered as he thought no one wanted to do it, which left Meyrick.  
This was not what either of us had expected, Meyrick had thought that we would be standing for election at the upcoming AGM, now we were dropped in the deep end with a 24hr race to try and resurrect.

7) 25 June Brands – The process of trying to generate 24hr interest starts.

8.) Rightly or wrongly Rent Boys decide to build a C1 to enter alongside Caryl's to ensure that a proper representation trial could take place.

9) Following a lot of work from a number of different people and a good slice of luck the rest is history, the 24hr race happened, thanks to the total entry it proved to be a financial success for the club, however a financial success is only one element and many things need to be done to ensure its future.

10) This year has shown that with some direction and effort we can make these events work. We may not be totally happy with the circuit, its location, the timings, the weekend it happens on or even the weather that we get but we can work to improve the things that we can influence and I am currently working towards the race plans for 2017 for which I have very provisional alternatives to choose from, the board will use the responses from the survey that is due out imminently, to decide the final calendar.

I have full quotes from Anglesey and am at an advanced stage of negotiations with Snetterton for a minimum of a 3 year contract, I hope to be able to make a much earlier announcement about the calendar than has been achieved in recent years so that everyone can set the dates in their diary. This will hopefully be one of many elements that will help us to see better supported events.

11) As is quoted many times, our club's label is 2CV racing and my intention is to use all aspects possible to ensure that we get as many 2CVs on the grid as is absolutely possible, there are a lot of cars out there that need to be tempted back to racing. To try and help with this process, the board at this week's meeting, has set aside a £10,000 fund to be used to get unused car back on track. Numbers on the grid are vitally important to control costs, we currently find ourselves in a bit of a vicious circle of lower numbers causing an increase to entry fees, this is of course exaggerated by circuit costs increasing at above inflation rates, I'm negotiating with BARC to try and limit this effect.
The utopian position would be to have 44 x 2CV 602's at the 24hr, this is a mesmerising target to aim for but we all need to be realistic in what is actually achievable.

12) The second element that I feel will have a major impact on the number of 602s in the 24-hour is the entry fee, we need to aim to get this substantially below £2000, how many extra 602's would consider the race if the fully incentive cost was say £1500? If we all work together this is a possibility.

13) There are many other things that we should consider which as an example could include making the 24hr event a handicap race to give all entrants an equal chance of winning. As long as the handicapper got the sums right the slowest class should lead for the majority if not all the race, with faster cars playing catch up, the latter parts of the race could gain a new excitement. (Thanks to Paul Robertson for recently reminding us of the potential of this process). We should/could see a 602 once again winning the UK race.

To try and conclude my answer to your questions, yes the C1 exists, it took part in a trial at Anglesey as the mini's did a few years ago, some C1's will run at Spa, 2CVRT are using it as an opportunity to look at the cars and see if they want to consider them in any format for the future, I won't be driving one of them as I will be driving one of the Euro Hybrid's.

You are quite correctly asking what the longer-term intention is with the C1s following this year's experiment.  They may have a role to play in increasing grids and ensuring the long-term viability of our racing in the same way as the euro's and mini's do.  5 or 6 will be racing in the Spa 24hr; and as many as 10 may be interested in next year's UK 24hr.  From our perspective, their function would be to reduce our entry fees and hence get more 2CVs back out on the grids.  Longer-term, I expect they will have their own series.

As you have alluded to there is a current lack of trust in my motives, I can confirm that I have absolutely no intention or plans for a C1 take over of our club, there is no secret agenda. I have enjoyed 14 years racing with the 2CV fraternity and hope to be involved for many more, I started racing some 38 years ago (yes that makes me quite old) and love the sport, I am trying to put something back into a sport that I have had much enjoyment from.

I find myself able to commit time and effort to this and I am prepared to continue doing this, however without your and other senior club members support I guess that this will be a rocky road and not in any ones best interests especially and most importantly the racing club. As you are aware trying to operate this club can be a pretty thankless task but somebody needs to do it.  
I want nothing more than for the club to be sustainable and successful with its objectives, which is racing 2CVs.

Regards

Philip

Trevor Williams

#2
Philip

Can you please confirm when the Board will provide full details regarding the "issues" with the formation of the Company? All we seem to hear is "won't go into it here, we will tell you later"

Can you please elaborate as to why you believe that you, the board and the Club (Company) are at risk from unlimited liability?

The Club (Company) does not organise racing, BARC does. The races are under an MSA permit. The MSA holds PI insurance to cover this. It's limit of liability is £65million per incident.

The Club (Company) contracts with an hotel to hold it's Dinner Dance. The venue holds PI insurance as part of this Contract

The only other thing the Club (Company) organises is BBQ. THIS is the only place where the Board and Members are at risk

Cheers
Trevor
Some days, it's REALLY difficult being me!

coxm

Hi Trevor,

First point to make here is that the members decided in 2008 to do this.  It just wasn't done properly; so the decision has already been taken that this is a risk that members don't want to face.  By the members. 8 years ago.  Not by the current board.

I didn't vote on it at the time, but I understand that it was in response to, among other things, the Ferrari owners' club's being sued because someone put a post on their forum to the effect that a car was a fake.  The club is the publisher of the forum and responsible for anything on it.

We are not introducing something new here.  We are trying to put right something that the members voted on and wished to happen 8 years ago; and it was not implemented properly, so the members did not get what they expected.  I don't want to second guess the reasons which each member elected to vote to incorporate the activities of the club.  Its a decision that was taken a long time ago.  As an aside, your analysis of the risks is much too simplistic, but I'm not sure that's not relevant.

I've laid out the problems in my letter to all members which is also published on the forum under announcements, but in short:
1.  No articles were adopted.  That means none of the specific rules which members wanted are in force; and the board has broadly unfettered powers to do as it sees fit.  That is inappropriate
2.  The Club Rules were broadly a copy of the unadopted articles.  That means that the protections afforded by incorporation don't work.  The Club, as a legal entity needs to be very clearly seen not to be involved in the activities transferred to the company
3.  None of the AGMs since have been held properly, so the resolutions passed at them are null and void.

I think you were a member in 2008.  Did you not vote for the incorporation?  My understanding was that its was almost unanimous.

Trevor Williams

Meyrick

I was the Chairman that put the process to the membership in 2007. Yes I voted for it.

What you have so far failed to demonstrate to me is how it was done improperly.

I would like to understand in full your reasons for believing what you do, hence my request to you earlier that the legal advice received by the Board be published

At the moment, all I see is a load of "He said / She said" and until all information is presented, how can anyone make an informed decision?

My questions to Philip are all valid, and in my opinion merit answers

Cheers
Some days, it's REALLY difficult being me!

coxm

Let me address your points once more.

How it was done improperly?

- There are no Memorandum and Articles of Association filed at Companies House
- There was no board minute adopting them
- There was no AGM called to adopt them
- There was no member vote adopting them

All facts, not opinions.  This is all set out in my letter to members, which was sent to you directly; and is posted on the forum under announcements.

Your questions to Philip

I'm a bit puzzled here.  You say that you proposed incorporation originally.  Why did you propose incorporation if it was not to remove members' unlimited liability?  That's the only thing incorporation achieves.

Nick Roads

#6
Wow - got a headache reading all this and the recent announcements. It is very welcome to have all these issues published openly and in a timely fashion. Great to have Philip and Meyrick investing so much time and effort in the Club. A lot to absorb however and will no doubt raise lots of questions in the next few weeks.

Meyrick - on the reply to Trevor  today at 0755 you state no memorandum and articles at Companies House but found what appears to be them at Companies House website easily enough. Incorporation documents of 5 August 2008 are filed there - pages 3 -17 seem to me to clearly show both articles and memorandum:

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/th_8fosopcc_U56TUL4DJCHhVGW7WWYnoVaJLf0iXHg/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAJLFZGGGMPA76P2AQ&Expires=1474656490&Signature=IptZXMn0dnfuE6H7bVuZBM6SMYM%3D&x-amz-security-token=FQoDYXdzEI7%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaDM3WIa6WnIGhxi1g3iKcAxabm%2Bc1aMxooqmIS9XIsjU%2F0cCNpBrGXe6GNGR46UW27TDx%2FjmQNENlinR6i7Fzymy6jPgT%2FwE3CTE5cMvSEBynupGs7nSaFCjl4ZmHViwMz5r9BYl4D8vHufIvpavbJdm1MxgkbpC%2B1crJ%2FpE1d4wXaU69U1QBD5XQ44fVZgkxh1dm3DjspAJd%2B3raTr%2FaisKkHQhseaYaGIx31f8D4P6Ucj1cFs8kgcRX3bDxiv5zQ%2B9jajCQO7%2Fnzi1zs0sfrrFVc1z5qLpOeIha6EavX0LO7lCKshaaQmvjDq4Ja4KQYFrdxkd5Hiyf1xpL8jaw6GXswislNJED5qrvg%2BKnpEYcHMIhjnXCKCgECgpAAh1mgDhBr3dnzXXDlok0A5A47TlDIp5lUXoMypejoPC3zaRyDqRSRRK4js1msaAIf4NlhLilBbZngtYMMYZg6HnLiopZKPJS5cH0XkZAdKku5mbsKvzDkIh%2Fm1oAI34fAaAU7xavC6RAkQV3Uxz4qdh%2BpsANd1gtN8vU1VM8lpnOCZmMV5EmFRKHi3gtFlIoksmUvwU%3D

Attached it as well to this thread.

You state there was no Board Minute adopting them - do we actually have all the minutes dating back that far along with the relevant AGM etc. It would be useful to have all the minutes and AGM records for 2007, 2008 and 2009 published as so many of the actions undertaken at the Board Meeting are based on those records. My hazy recollection is that the incorporation and adoption were all discussed and voted on at the AGM but I do not keep records. We certainly operated to the articles etc when I was a Director 2011-2014. I do not think we had any lawyers as full members or Directors in the 2007 - 2014 period so no surprise to me if we collectively missed some procedural nuance.  

If I was a pedant (ok I am) then I would question some of the advice given to/ decisions reached by the Board in what seems such a rapid way and is changing so many established practices. I look forward to the voting for the Technical Regulations when a series of cars turn up to vote ! (my italics and bold from the 22 Sept letter Chairmans letter)

The final step, and this is based on clear legal advice, is that we need to change who votes on the Technical Regulations; we also need to establish the right group to vote on the Sporting Regulations.  Because we have held meetings where it has been very unclear what sort of AGM it was, we need to create a clear distance from the past in order to avoid any accusation that the Club (ie its members) is involved in the Company's activities.  The Technical Regulations will be voted on by the teams; defined as cars which raced in the sprint series or 24-hour race in the season leading up to the AGM.  Each car will have one vote.  The Sporting Regulations will be voted on jointly by the Teams (as above) and Drivers that are racing members, who raced in the sprint series or 24-hour race in the season leading up to the AGM.  One vote per driver.    

The club also used to publish a list of members - given all the issues being raised here could I ask that this is done and to include the date and amount paid by the member. This will be needed for the proposed voting system above for the Sporting regulations. Those pesky cars above also get a vote in the Sporting Regulations as well so that will need rewording.

You asked for volunteers for the process to propose articles of association or perhaps it may be that there are proposals to update the existing articles. My current view is that the existing Memo and articles do apply despite what I have read. Either way round happy to volunteer and do agree they need updating.






Derek Coghill

The list of members could probably be amended to exclude those who don't score points for the heinous crime of only doing one race.

coxm

Nick, Firstly, thank you for volunteering, much appreciated; and gratefully accepted. 

I'll write a detailed answer during the course of the day, with what should have happened versus what seems to have been done; but those are the incorporation documents (and titled such at Companies House) and need to be adopted - apologies, I'm trying to simplify explanations as much as possible, which is always risky on technical matters.  On your other questions:
- We do have a list of members, which Chris Yates manages very efficiently; and I'll get that published shortly.  There are very few associate members
- We have full board minutes of the company; and I'll get them published too
- We have minutes of the last couple of meetings of the Club.  The incorporation was proposed by Aubrey in April 2008, after he became chairman in late 2007.  I'll get them up as well
- I'll also publish the last set of rules of the Club prior to incorporation; and for reference the Club rules post incorporation.  There are relatively minor changes between the two (which is one of the main problems)
- I will also publish the email response that I had sent to Trevor in response to his question on legal opinions.  There is no history of the club having taken legal advice, and despite a budget being authorised in 2008, it was not used.  We've been a bit more thorough this time round.  I have removed the actual names of the firms that we consulted, as it would be inappropriate to publish them and imply we have had formal advice from them, which we haven't.  If anyone wants to know them privately, I'm happy to share them.
What we don't have, and I'm 99% certain that's because they don't exist, are any documents actually transferring the activities from the Club to the Company

coxm

This is the email response that I sent to Trevor in respect of his question on Legal opinions

Dear Trevor,

We did not get a written legal opinion; and in my experience, it would be unusual to do so unless the legal issues are very complex; whereas in this case, the legal issues are simple.  Firstly, if you ask lawyers to provide written opinions, its very expensive; secondly, its more a case of what has actually been done (or rather not done) by the company / club; so it did not appear to be a very good use of resources.  It also does not appear to have been the habit of the board historically.

I've been on a lot of boards; and it is a good idea to review the governance and structure of any company whose board you join before you do so.  I didn't get the chance here, because we all got a bit bounced by Mervyn's resignation at the last board meeting; so I did so immediately after joining.  I suppose I should have done so when I became a member of the club back in 2003 or so, but there we are.

There have been four of us involved in this mostly:  Aubrey, Christine, Philip and me.  All the directors have been copied in on anything material we've found / proposed etc.  We've reviewed the minute book and AGM records of the Company.  As far as we can tell, there is no minute book from the Club pre-incorporation, however, the minute book of the Company records the last committee meeting which led to incorporation, which is all we need in this case.  The Club (both at the committee and member level) decided / voted to incorporate.  I understand that this was primarily in response to someone's suing the Ferrari owners club for a post on their forum to the effect that a car was a fake.

Having voted to incorporate, other than adding directors to the board, that's all that happened.  The Mem & Arts of the Company were never adopted, which would have required minutes, notices and an actual meeting.  Nor did any of the other administrative points take place. Both Aubrey and Philip were on the board at that time (as were Paul and Wayne) and they both confirmed that it didn't happen.  Aubrey got the Mem & Arts from the Caterham club and modified them himself, with some minor legal advice although he can't remember from whom.  The Club Rules were mostly copied from the Caterham articles (again, no one seems to know what, if any, club rules there were before that, not that it matters a lot); I've no idea why - if the club is transferring its operations into a company, you need to work out what the club is going to do then. No one can remember where the actual Company itself came from, other than its being a "shelf company", which is completely normal.  It seems that no one who was around at the time understood the process of incorporation properly; and I understand that the club wasn't very financially sound at the time, so couldn't afford proper advice.

None of this is terribly satisfactory, but its where we are; and I don't think it makes sense to try to ask why, or who is responsible?  We need to put it right.  Members thought that they had voted something though and haven't got what they expected.  Thankfully, nothing terrible has happened in the meantime.

So the analysis of what is wrong is simple.  The question is what to do about it.  In order to understand that, I have spoken to four different lawyers, to make sure that we have got a good spectrum of advice on it.  They are all people that I can get to look at this without charging us and are:  the senior partner of one the top corporate law firms in Europe;  a West End boutique law firm who are very good at corporate work; and two company secretaries of other companies limited by guarantee.  Its not perfect, in that I would rather have just wheeled in a bunch of lawyers to do it all for us, but you'd looking at tens of thousands of legal costs to do so.  The advice from each of them was pretty consistent; and is set out in summary form in the letter that I just circulated:
- we need to adopt Mem & Arts - and having got it wrong once, I asked for a legal budget from the board to make sure we didn't again.
- we need to make it clear that the Club does not perform the same role as the Company.  The club's activities are performed through the Company; and not by the Club, or you haven't achieved anything.  In that sense, the club is the Company, but the Club still exists as a separate legal entity.
That's exactly what we've proposed.  I genuinely think, other than losing the potential liability, nothing has changed for members, other than the committees being the place to debate the Tech and Sporting Regs, rather than the AGM.  I'd like to think that's actually a better place, since at the AGM, you've got maybe a few hours before the dinner dance, whereas at the Committees there is three months before the AGM.

I have to say, I'm a bit puzzled by all the fuss.  This is all genuinely intended just to put members in the position that they thought they were in already; and haven't been for eight years.  If there had been anger at the 2008 board members, I'd have understood entirely.  If you're in any doubt about it at all, please call and I'll talk you through it at as much length as you like.  Equally, if anyone else is worried, please ask them to call me and I'll spend as much time explaining it as needed.  This is entirely in members' interests.  If we don't adopt some articles, the board's powers are literally unfettered.  That simply isn't right.

coxm

Just checked - all the Company minutes are already published on the forum in Club Notices, right from the very beginning. 

coxm

These are the last club rules prior to incorporation; and the club rules which were in place recently

Trevor Williams

Quote from: coxm on September 23, 2016, 07:55:47
Let me address your points once more.

How it was done improperly?

- There are no Memorandum and Articles of Association filed at Companies House
- There was no board minute adopting them
- There was no AGM called to adopt them
- There was no member vote adopting them

All facts, not opinions.  This is all set out in my letter to members, which was sent to you directly; and is posted on the forum under announcements.

Your questions to Philip

I'm a bit puzzled here.  You say that you proposed incorporation originally.  Why did you propose incorporation if it was not to remove members' unlimited liability?  That's the only thing incorporation achieves.


Meyrick
Thank you for your response noted above, which I will respond to in due course.

I have a couple of further questions that your response brings up:

1. Can you please point me in the direction of where in the Act or Regulations exercising the powers of the Act it states that there is a requirement for the Board to adopt the Articles.
2. Can you please point me in the direction of where in the Act or Regulations exercising the powers of the Act it states that an AGM has to be called to adopt the Articles.
3. Can you please point me in the direction of where in the Act or Regulations exercising the powers of the Act it states that there has to be a member vote to adopt the Articles

I would be grateful if you could provide me with the answers at your earliest convenience

Regards

Trevor
Some days, it's REALLY difficult being me!

coxm


Trevor Williams

Some days, it's REALLY difficult being me!