Sesame awaits news on 28.5% NDFA stake
Share
Sesame owns a 28.5 per cent stake in collapsed structured product provider NDFA, but insists it will not suffer financial detriment following the company’s fall into administration.
Money Marketing revealed last week that NDFA was on the brink of administration. Grant Thornton has been appointed administrator to both NDFA and its sister company Defined Returns Limited.
A Sesame spokesman says Sesame retains a shareholding in NDFA that was inherited through its purchase of DBS in 2001.
He says: “This is a passive investment and Sesame has no seat on the NDFA board and no active involvement in strategic or business decisions.
“Furthermore, there is no shareholder agreement in place and we are comfortable that the decision to place NDFA into administration will have no detrimental financial impact on Sesame. However, like any shareholder, we await the outcome of the administrator’s findings to see what happens next.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (3)
Anonymous | 19 Oct 2009 5:23 pm
Do shareholders indeed 'share' the profits but not the liabilities?. Does the FSCS have an angle on shareholder liabilities? It does have thoughts on holding companies but how is a 'holding' measured?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter Turner | 20 Oct 2009 8:00 am
Legally, if a limited liability company or limited liability partnership goes bust, creditors can only make a claim against the assets of the company or LLP itself, not those of the shareholders.
That is what "Limited Liability" means and why I always tell people to trade as limited companies or LLPs.
There are exceptions and one of those is if a director or partner gives a personal guarantee - which will normally demand from its members.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20 Oct 2009 9:17 am
Another exception to the protection afforded by a limited company is if the directors have been found to be criminally negligent - though I'm not suggesting this is the case in this instance
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment