View more on these topics

Shareholders dash Lighthouse delisting hopes

David Hickey Lighthouse

Lighthouse has failed in its attempt to delist from Aim after 53 per cent of shareholders voted against the proposal this week.

Last month, the firm proposed to delist from Aim and move to a public unquoted structure. It required 75 per cent of votes in order to push the motion through but a significant number of shareholders raised concerns about the move.

Lighthouse chairman David Hickey (pictured) says comments by former chief executive and majority shareholder Allan Rosengren influenced some shareholders’ votes. Rosengren has a 14.7 per cent stake in Lighthouse.

Hickey says: “We were surprised at the way the vote went but perhaps we should not have been in light of recent comments by Allan Rosengren. I think it is probably right to say the comments influenced shareholders.”

Last month, Rosengren told the Financial Times: “The board of directors of a business that has gone through the process of becoming quoted and, in doing so, sought external private and institutional investors…owes it to those shareholders to continue to operate as a listed entity, or make a sensible cash offer for their shares.”

Rosengren says his comments did not change shareholders’ minds.

He says: “Shareholders will make their own minds up and draw their own conclusions.”

The Lighthouse board owns about 7 per cent of the firm. About 78 per cent of shareholders took part in the vote.

Shareholders have stopped short of calling for any Lighthouse executives to resign.

Hickey says: “I do not think the board is under any pressure to resign.”

Cavendish Asset Management senior investment manager Paul Mumford, who owns a 5 per cent shareholding in Lighthouse through his Aim fund, says: “The proposal was not thought through properly and was not attractive to shareholders.”


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. The right decision was reached by the shareholders however I do not see how this Chairman can continue following all his comments including his latest cheap shot at a former colleague. How can we as shareholders have any trust in this Board?

  2. I wholly agree with the previous comment – how can Hickey continue in his role as Chairman. It is obvious that the shareholders have no faith in him. As for his snide comments about Rosengren – that just confirms the type of man Hickey is!

  3. “business as usual” is not acceptable now. We can not have a situation where we have a Chairman and a Board that do not want to run a listed company. To already hear his excuses of why his over paid job will be even more difficult for him is unacceptable. Will he now be he’ll bent on proving us “ignorant and Ill informed” shareholders we were wrong? what about the rest of the Board. None have come out and said anything. Are they just happy to go along with whatever their Chair tells them? I can not possibly see how “drawing a line” is the right way?

  4. Allan Rosengren 2nd August 2012 at 10:17 pm

    I guess I should be flattered that David Hickey accords such a high level of importance of the very few comments I made in relation to this sorry saga.

    The fact is that this was an ill conceived and poorly executed proposition. Shareholders simply considered the information provided to them and rightly reached their own conclusions.

    The company’s proposal to delist from AIM was defeated by a clear and very substantial margin, which may well have been rather higher had I actively sought to participate in the debate and engage in influencing the outcome, as is suggested.

Leave a comment