Pru chairman faces AGM revolt
Share
Prudential chairman Hugh McGrath faces shareholder protest against his re-election at the firm’s AGM on Thursday, led by Fidelity, according to the Financial Times.
Up to 20 per cent of the largest investors are expected to vent their anger at the role played by McGrath when Prudential was forced to scrap its £21.9bn takeover of rival AIA just over a year ago. Investors refused to back the original bid price and AIA’s parent company, AIG, refused to lower the terms. It cost Prudential £377m in fees.
However, a large shareholder, who was opposed to the AIA takeover, told the Financial Times it would support the management in the vote.
‘A lot has moved on from when we’d have objected [to McGrath’s appointment],’ they told the newspaper.
‘The time to strike was then, but many institutions were lily-livered. It’s pathetic to wait until now to vote against the management.’
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Most popular
-
Standard Life to pay platform clients' 2013 rebate tax bill
-
Aviva signs exclusive protection deal with Lighthouse Financial Advice
-
Ukip calls for RDR to be scrapped
-
Celebrities and footballers ‘victims of £125m film investment tax fraud’
-
Govt warns of £4bn pensions bill from same sex marriage amendment
Readers' comments (2)
Lesley | 18 May 2011 11:36 am
It is a great pity that these large shareholders were not so vocal when Prudential plundered the inherited estates to the tune of 1.6 billion pounds at the policyholders expense.This was to pay for mis-selling costs,to subsidise new business and to pay shareholders tax bills.The £377 million in fees looks like peanuts to the £1.6 billion. Learn to live with it the policyholders had no say why should you?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Lee D | 19 May 2011 0:18 am
Lesley, do you realise how little sense your post made?
You appear to be complaining that shareholders did not vote out the board for running the business in a way that made them more profit.
It seems any article with "Prudential" in the title is bringing you out in a rash in your desperation to repeat what was old news years ago.
If you don't like the way they did their business, I suggest you drop the FSA a note - they seem interested in the Pru's business recently.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment