The ousted executive directors of Mission Capital claimed this week that they have been victims of a “sudden and brutal coup” at the AIM-quoted property company.
Father and daughter Neil and Emma Sinclair were in the high court to try to get reinstated to the board pending a full trial of the dispute over the future control of
In documents presented to the judge, they claim that they have been wrongly accused of a catalogue of failures in the running of the company. They claim that their non-executive directors terminated their contracts on 5 February because they had allegedly failed to provide financial information and management accounts and to achieve forecasts.
In his witness statement, non-exec Robert Burrow claims that “no picture of the overall performance of the company was being disclosed” and the Sinclairs “had little time for essential and legitimate enquiries for information made by members of the board. It appears that they believed it was their company and that they were ignoring our comments.”
The Sinclairs dispute the claims and in turn accuse Burrow of a conflict of interest given his position as a director of Chelsfield Partners, whose joint venture with
The Sinclair’s barrister Paul Greenwood warned that
Catherine Newman QC, counsel for the non-execs, denied these claims and argued that “the only jeopardy and damage to the company was being caused by the presence of the Sinclairs.”
In papers filed at court, Mission Capital claims that the Sinclairs and their supporters control only 14.7% of the company while those shareholders backing the non-executive directors – including Elliott Bernerd and Christopher Jonas – account for 44.5%.
Last week, Mission Capital reported a pretax loss of £1.8m for the year to September 2007.
The case continues.
