MOTORISTS’ PETROL COMPANY

Evening Star, Issue 22343, 20 May 1936, Page 7

MOTORISTS’ PETROL COMPANY

TREATMENT OF PREFERENCE SHAREHOLDERS AN AGGRIEVED SECTION [Pkk Unhid Press Association.! WELLINGTON, May 19. A lively interest in the activities of the Board of Directors of the Associated Motorists’ Petrol Company Ltd., was shown at a general meeting of preference shareholders of the company held for the purpose of electing two directors to represent them on. the board. The chairman (Mr Charles Todd) allowed a general discussion before the poll was taken, and during this discussion some unequivocal language was used. The retiring preference shareholders directors were Messrs F. W. Johnstone and W A. O’Callaghan, who stood for re-election, and with them as other candidates were Messrs W. M. King

and James M'lntosh. Before the adjournment was taken , Mr G. H. P. Fitzgerald, one of those who criticised actions by the directors in the administration or the affairs of the company, asked those who were in sympathy with the views placed before , the meeting by him and his supporters to meet him during the afternoon with a view to the election of a committee so that- they could meet the board and get “an agreement that would not crush the company. Mr M'lntosh, criticising the directors of the company, particularly those representing the preference shareholders, said that Messrs O’Callaghan and Johnstone had a special duty to perform—namely, that, it.they were dissatisfied with the treatment given to the preference shareholders, they should report the grounds of their dissatisfaction to those they represented. He was not aware of any such report having been made, and must assume that they were satisfied that the interests of the preference shareholders had been fully conserved by/the directors of the company. Mr O’Callaghan contended that the ’ . last balance sheet of the company , showed beyond question that the preference shareholders were adequately protected. All users of petrol were benefiting because of the operation of the company, contended *Mr Carey. Most of J the preference shareholders had come into the company to get cheaper petrol. If they were not satisfied why complain to the public? Why did they not complain to those who represented them? Mr Fitzgerald said he had dozens of letters from people stating that they had received anything hut courteous treatment. The Chairman : Nonsense I Mr Carey, suggested that, whatever argument'there was, it would be better to have it out round the table instead of the preference- shareholders dividing into two camps. Mr Moss said that from correspondence which had been received he could assure them that there was a very in-

tense feeling. The support and cooperation ■of 7,300 shareholders meant : a great deal to the of the company, A'gbod deal-ef that co-operation, continued Mr!; Mossy had been lost. If the company gave a rebate of Id per gallon to', the preference shareholders, it would cost the company only £15,000 a year. The company could not get -.along without those 7,000 preference shareholders. . Mr Todd: If you wreck the present company the cost of petrol will go up ,6d a. gallon, Mr Moss; Not under the present Government. Mr, Grainger said _ that what they were not satisfied with was that the directors should collect a dividend of 35 per cent. The Chairman : That was spread over three years: . . The meeting then closed, the chairman having previously, announced that the result of the poll would not be known for three.or perhaps four days.