KERRY CO OP's FUTURE

Kerry2016

Hi everyone.

Long story short the people running Kerry Co Op are under the impression that the shareholders don't want their Co Op shares converted into PLC shares. The average farmer would have in the region of €270,000 to gain if all his shares were converted, overall there is €2bn worth of shareholders money locked up in Kerry Co Op. This is a simple poll where I'm just politely asking ye to vote so the Co Op can have some concrete evidence that the majority of shareholders want their shares converted

Kerry2016

No

And if you don't want the other shareholders to get their money could you state the reasoning behind it - thanks

kerry cow

I am all for a full conversion .

fepper

No

Kerry2016 wrote: »

And if you don't want the other shareholders to get their money could you state the reasoning behind it - thanks

It shouldn't be about the money only,but its function now as a investment holding company is questionable at best,Kerry plc are already excellent in that field

Kerry2016

No

Is there any sort of onbudsman or watchdog that we can report the Co Op to? It's turned into a farce at this stage, it's a €2bn "investment company" which has only made 1 investment in 31 years (the share price of the company they invested in fell from the €5 per share that the Co Op paid all the way down to 15 cent a share). And then there's the lads running it, its 28 farmers none of whom have any business qualifications and the Co Op has been without a CEO for about a year now, the fella who they tried to appoint as CEO turned down the Co Op's job and is working with Kerry Radio now instead… the fact someone turned down the position as CEO of Kerry co op for a part time job on the radio says it all really

50HX

who votes in the 28 farmers??

fepper

No

50HX wrote: »

who votes in the 28 farmers??

Milk suppliers to another company namely Kerry plc vote them in through area committees that existed when Kerry coop ran the whole business,a complete farce set up now

50HX

so if they farmers/ co op shareholders want to voice an opinion it goes thru those that they voted in?

Kerry2016

No

Us farmers vote in people to the Co Op's committe board.

Then the committe board members can put themselves forward to be voted on to the Co Op board, the other committe board members vote them on

However they get voted on under the pretence of who buys who the biggest box of chocolates or bottle of whiskey at Christmas time

And if your a big farmer or big shareholder you've no chance of getting voted on to the Co Op board because of the resentment that you'll face

Also going forward for all these elections is very time consuming - no way would I be able to find the time to go around canvassing for months at a time asking people to vote me in. The only fellas who have the time to put themselves forward for election are the smallest of the farmers

And its also worth noting that the committe board members get sent off on all expenses paid holidays to far flung places of their choice totally at the expense of their fellow farmers, the people on the Co Op board are drawing over €1,000,000 between salaries and expenses… asking them to convert our shares is just a case of asking turkeys to vote for xmas

fepper

No

The coop board don't need to be there at all,thats our argument here,its usefulness is long gone since Kerry plc took over

Kerry2016

No

The IFA and the other farming organisations need to restore their own reputations by rowing in behind us Kerry Co Op shareholders now

There's farmers around here having repo men coming into their yards and taking away their machinery, all the while they've hundreds of thousands of euros worth of shares waiting to be converted

fepper

No

Kerry2016 wrote: »

Us farmers vote in people to the Co Op's committe board.

Then the committe board members can put themselves forward to be voted on to the Co Op board, the other committe board members vote them on

However they get voted on under the pretence of who buys who the biggest box of chocolates or bottle of whiskey at Christmas time

And if your a big farmer or big shareholder you've no chance of getting voted on to the Co Op board because of the resentment that you'll face

Also going forward for all these elections is very time consuming - no way would I be able to find the time to go around canvassing for months at a time asking people to vote me in. The only fellas who have the time to put themselves forward for election are the smallest of the farmers

And its also worth noting that the committe board members get sent off on all expenses paid holidays to far flung places of their choice totally at the expense of their fellow farmers, the people on the Co Op board are drawing over ?1,000,000 between salaries and expenses? asking them to convert our shares is just a case of asking turkeys to vote for xmas

Fair dues to all who go canvassing for your votes during coop elections whether the candidate is large /small farmer /shareholders and it was important then when Kerry coop was collecting,processing,paying for your milk but what are Kerry coop representing you now for when its the plc that does all that business today

Kerry2016

No

The chairman of the Co Op has personally told me repeatedly in front of plenty of witnesses that he thinks something needs to be done with the Co Op shares to look after the young farmers, the man needs to be removed. Enough is enough. Let alone is he not working in the best interest of the shareholders he's actually completely working against us which goes against company law

What's he thinking going around telling everyone that he wants to look out for the young farmers?!?! Company law dictates that you must do what's best for your shareholders - let alone is our chairman not doing this, he's actually going around telling people that he's doesn't intend on doing it

fepper

No

Kerry2016 wrote: »

The chairman has personally told me repeatedly in front of plenty of witnesses that he thinks something needs to be done with the Co Op shares to look after the young farmers, the man needs to be removed. Enough is enough. Let alone is he not working in the best interest of the shareholders he's actually completely working against us

The whole thread will be closed again if you keep getting personal here,its not up to Kerry coop to reward young milk suppliers as those suppliers supply the plc so let the plc board look after them

Kerry2016

No

fepper wrote: »

The whole thread will be closed again if you keep getting personal here,its not up to Kerry coop to reward young milk suppliers as those suppliers supply the plc so let the plc board look after them

Unfortunately it didn't stop the co op last time Fepper

Buford T. Justice XIX

Kerry2016 wrote: »

Us farmers vote in people to the Co Op's committe board.

Then the committe board members can put themselves forward to be voted on to the Co Op board, the other committe board members vote them on

However they get voted on under the pretence of who buys who the biggest box of chocolates or bottle of whiskey at Christmas time

And if your a big farmer or big shareholder you've no chance of getting voted on to the Co Op board because of the resentment that you'll face

Also going forward for all these elections is very time consuming - no way would I be able to find the time to go around canvassing for months at a time asking people to vote me in. The only fellas who have the time to put themselves forward for election are the smallest of the farmers

And its also worth noting that the committe board members get sent off on all expenses paid holidays to far flung places of their choice totally at the expense of their fellow farmers, the people on the Co Op board are drawing over €1,000,000 between salaries and expenses… asking them to convert our shares is just a case of asking turkeys to vote for xmas

MOD NOTE: For clarity sake, shareholders in Kerry Co-op vote for and elect committee members for each region who in turn vote for board members.

Also, as part of continuing education of board and committee members, they are taken on study tours to visit areas and businesses that the PLC would have present or future interest in.

As has been pointed out in previous threads both on this forum and others, attempts to cast aspersions on the motives of representativesof Kerry will not be tolerated.

Stick to points that can be linked to or leave them out altogether.

This, due to the level of moderation needed for other similar threads in the recent past, will be the only warning issued.

Anyone wishing to discuss and participate in this thread please take note now.

Buford T. Justice.

fepper

No

And look where that landed them in hot water with revenue,don't think that's going to happen again as they are two different companies now and in reality our board did fritter away the shares

fepper

No

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

MOD NOTE: For clarity sake, shareholders in Kerry Co-op vote for and elect committee members for each region who in turn vote for board members.

Also, as part of continuing education of board and committee members, they are taken on study tours to visit areas and businesses that the PLC would have present or future interest in.

As has been pointed out in previous threads both on this forum and others, attempts to cast aspersions on the motives of representativesof Kerry will not be tolerated.

Stick to points that can be linked to or leave them out altogether.

This, due to the level of moderation needed for other similar threads in the recent past, will be the only warning issued.

Anyone wishing to discuss and participate in this thread please take note now.

Buford T. Justice.

Its only A shareholders who voted in the coop elections B and C shareholders cant vote

Kerry2016

No

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

MOD NOTE: For clarity sake, shareholders in Kerry Co-op vote for and elect committee members for each region who in turn vote for board members.

Also, as part of continuing education of board and committee members, they are taken on study tours to visit areas and businesses that the PLC would have present or future interest in.

As has been pointed out in previous threads both on this forum and others, attempts to cast aspersions on the motives of representativesof Kerry will not be tolerated.

Stick to points that can be linked to or leave them out altogether.

This, due to the level of moderation needed for other similar threads in the recent past, will be the only warning issued.

Anyone wishing to discuss and participate in this thread please take note now.

Buford T. Justice.

Firstly, 3,000 of the 13,000 shareholders are allowed vote for the people on the committe boards

Kerry Co Op and Kerry Group are 2 separate companies.

Kerry Co Op is an investment company which happens to own 13% of Kerry Group, the board members go on these "study trips" to see farms around the world. And if the purpose of these trips is learning then why do they go on for so long? It's a couple days of looking at farm related stuff only, the entire of the trip is paid for by us shareholders who aren't able to put bread on the table for our families yet we're sending the lads on the committe board all over the world

An investment company has no business sending its board members around the world to look at different types of farming. And I'm sure that you know as does the rest of the country that the relationship between the Co Op and the PLC is history. It's gone, over. Thing of the past. At a recent shareholders meeting I wanted the ground to swallow me up because it got so embarrassingly obvious for the Co Op what the PLC's relationship with them has come down to

Farming is only a tiny part of Kerry Group at this stage, Kerry Co Op is only a shareholder in Kerry Group

None of that is offensive to anyone or untrue, all of what I have said is indisputably factual

50HX

don't know enough about it so a bit like dragons den.................i'm out

fepper

No

Kerry2016 wrote: »

Firstly, 3,000 of the 13,000 shareholders are allowed vote for the people on the committe boards

Kerry Co Op and Kerry Group are 2 separate companies.

Kerry Co Op is an investment company which happens to own 13% of Kerry Group, the board members go on these "study trips" to see farms around the world. And if the purpose of these trips is learning then why do they go on for so long? It's a couple days of looking at farm related stuff only, the entire of the trip is paid for by us shareholders who aren't able to put bread on the table for our families yet we're sending the lads on the committe board all over the world

An investment company has no business sending its board members around the world to look at different types of farming. And I'm sure that you know as does the rest of the country that the relationship between the Co Op and the PLC is history. It's gone, over. Thing of the past. At a recent shareholders meeting I wanted the ground to swallow me up because it got so embarrassingly obvious for the Co Op what the PLC's relationship with them has come down to

Farming is only a tiny part of Kerry Group at this stage, Kerry Co Op is only a shareholder in Kerry Group

None of that is offensive to anyone or untrue, all of what I have said is indisputably factual

Well said there Kerry 2016,don't think we've got to the stage yet where farmers struggling to put bread on the table ,again thats not the point,its why keep Kerry coop as a non entity

Bass Reeves

Kerry 2016 can you explain the difference in A,B and C shareholders who they are and if they are active or inactive shareholders. As well what relationship active milk producers have to these shareholders. You indicate that only about 3k people can vote for the committee are these active milk producers. It hard to understand why people vote on the way you explain

Kerry2016

No

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Kerry 2016 can you explain the difference in A,B and C shareholders who they are and if they are active or inactive shareholders. As well what relationship active milk producers have to these shareholders. You indicate that only about 3k people can vote for the committee are these active milk producers. It hard to understand why people vote on the way you explain

"A" shareholders are active milk suppliers

"B" shareholders are former milk suppliers

"C" shareholders never supplied any milk (almost all of these are the offspring of the A and B shareholders, it's just a case of a farmers children inheriting his shares usually)

Only the A's and B's are allowed attend the AGM's which is a dirgace, the offspring of a deceased farmer (C shareholders) who have inherited their shares should be allowed attend just as much as anyone else

The A's and B's are also allowed vote on any future conversions. It used to only be A's

But only the A's can vote committe board memebers in

fepper

No

Kerry2016 wrote: »

"A" shareholders are active milk suppliers

"B" shareholders are former milk suppliers

"C" shareholders never supplied any milk (almost all of these are the offspring of the A and B shareholders, it's just a case of a farmers children inheriting his shares usually)

Only the A's and B's are allowed attend the AGM's which is a dirgace, the offspring of a deceased farmer (C shareholders) who have inherited their shares should be allowed attend just as much as anyone else

The A's and B's are also allowed vote on any future conversions. It used to only be A's

But only the A's can vote committe board memebers in

And those A shareholders in Kerry coop supply milk to a another company so in reality milk supply should not be used as part of your shareholding status in Kerry coop

Kerry2016

No

fepper wrote: »

And those A shareholders in Kerry coop supply milk to a another company so in reality milk supply should not be used as part of your shareholding status in Kerry coop

Well said Fepper

Like if we are going to be pragmatic about it with the way in which it's determined if your a A, B or C shareholder currently it's just as fair as determining on what type of shareholder you are based on the brand of smartphone you have

So what if us A's sell milk to Kerry Group, that shouldn't give us any more rights than the C's

Bass Reeves

What you seem to have here is a battle over 1.7 billion in assets of the old. A Co_op is different to a company in that it is one member one vote regardless of shareholding. As active milk producers only can vote for the committee the people elected are beholden only to them. As any future conversion will have to be committee lead it will not happen unless it is in the interest of these A shareholders. Just to give an idea of the money involved I think there is about 13k shareholders on average a total distribution would yield 130 k to each shareholder.

However shareholders have different shareholding. As well active producers are hoping for further distribution relating to production. Only active producers with large shareholdings are actively interested in distribution. The rules are not in favour of B&C shareholders. Co-ops are not like companies only the register of friendly society's and the Co-op umbrella organisation have any input into their rules.

To get any change in attitude of board you will need to get committee changed

Kerry2016

No

Bass Reeves wrote: »

What you seem to have here is a battle over 1.7 billion in assets of the old. A Co_op is different to a company in that it is one member one vote regardless of shareholding. As active milk producers only can vote for the committee the people elected are beholden only to them. As any future conversion will have to be committee lead it will not happen unless it is in the interest of these A shareholders. Just to give an idea of the money involved I think there is about 13k shareholders on average a total distribution would yield 130 k to each shareholder.

However shareholders have different shareholding. As well active producers are hoping for further distribution relating to production. Only active producers with large shareholdings are actively interested in distribution. The rules are not in favour of B&C shareholders. Co-ops are not like companies only the register of friendly society's and the Co-op umbrella organisation have any input into their rules.

To get any change in attitude of board you will need to get committee changed

The average A shareholder has over double that to gain from a conversion

And I don't think you quite grasp that everyone at this stage wants their shares. Everyone on the committe board included, it's just a few members of the co op board that are against it and they're bullying the rest of the board, it won't take much to get things sorted. And by the time this whole tax mess with the co op is sorted out I don't think it will be allowed to operate under the guise of a co op any more

fepper

No

Bass Reeves wrote: »

What you seem to have here is a battle over 1.7 billion in assets of the old. A Co_op is different to a company in that it is one member one vote regardless of shareholding. As active milk producers only can vote for the committee the people elected are beholden only to them. As any future conversion will have to be committee lead it will not happen unless it is in the interest of these A shareholders. Just to give an idea of the money involved I think there is about 13k shareholders on average a total distribution would yield 130 k to each shareholder.

However shareholders have different shareholding. As well active producers are hoping for further distribution relating to production. Only active producers with large shareholdings are actively interested in distribution. The rules are not in favour of B&C shareholders. Co-ops are not like companies only the register of friendly society's and the Co-op umbrella organisation have any input into their rules.

To get any change in attitude of board you will need to get committee changed

But the problem here is that the active milk suppliers that have coop shareholdings don't supply Kerry coop which does not process or pay for milk currently so I cant see on what grounds they could increase their coop shareholdings by milk supply by selling it to Kerry plc

Buford T. Justice XIX

Kerry2016 wrote: »

The average A shareholder has over double that to gain from a conversion

And I don't think you quite grasp that everyone at this stage wants their shares. Everyone on the committe board included, it's just a few members of the co op board that are against it and they're bullying the rest of the board, it won't take much to get things sorted. And by the time this whole tax mess with the co op is sorted out I don't think it will be allowed to operate under the guise of a co op any more

MOD NOTE: Now I know you are going to provide me with a link to this allegation so no more posting on this thread until you do! You were warned not to make allegations without something to back it up so PM one of the mods with this evidence to post here again.

Buford T. Justice.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Mod Note: Thread closed until further notice.

Buford T. Justice

Buford T. Justice XIX

Mod note: Right folks, normal service has resumed. The charter follows for any that may need to refresh their memories about the rules.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057309495

Normal rules apply, if you have any queries, PM one of the mods about it.

Buford T. Justice.

kerry cow

Kerry shares are taking a dive ??
can someone who knows tell me is it possible for kerry co op to do a deal with the plc to swap shares for milk plants and feed mills and trading stores .
Is it possible or is it not .
Don't complicate it .

fepper

No

kerry cow wrote: »

Kerry shares are taking a dive ??
can someone who knows tell me is it possible for kerry co op to do a deal with the plc to swap shares for milk plants and feed mills and trading stores .
Is it possible or is it not .
Don't complicate it .

It certainly could be proposed by the board but would have to be carried by the shareholders which if passed would indicate that the shareholders that voted yes belong in a asylum.....and are you sitting on the fence as regarding voting in the poll above....

kerry cow

The share holders fepper been the A shareholders or all share holders .
We all know the carrots and promises that are made to get votes and egg on the face there after

fepper

No

A and B at the moment

fepper

No

There mustn't be many Kerry coop shareholders on the farming and forestry thread here on boards as the voting poll is in quite low numbers

BannerBarry

No

fepper wrote: »

There mustn't be many Kerry coop shareholders on the farming and forestry thread here on boards as the voting poll is in quite low numbers

True fepper.
It's probably the wrong forum for the stereotypical C shareholders.
The stereotypical B shareholders are retired farmers and are not online either.

The good news is the Co op shares are still worth €460 per share today even after the current Kerry Group share price falls.
The weakening dollar is impacting the Group share price remember... It won't last forever I suspect

kerry cow

Their here alright .alot of readers , but some people dont like to post , might be nervous that they might be revealed ??

BannerBarry

No

kerry cow wrote: »

Their here alright .alot of readers , but some people dont like to post , might be nervous that they might be revealed ??

There are pretty penal rules that state shareholders not acting in the interests of the Co op can be removed as shareholders and not get the value of the shares if the board believe they are not acting in the interests of the Co op...
its concerning the rules do not work the other way around.. democracy via voting I know you will say but really 32% of shareholders do not have that Co op "one man one vote" democracy and those that do are afraid of their share value to demand a proper value for their shares

Buford T. Justice XIX

BannerBarry wrote: »

There are pretty penal rules that state shareholders not acting in the interests of the Co op can be removed as shareholders and not get the value of the shares if the board believe they are not acting in the interests of the Co op...
its concerning the rules do not work the other way around.. democracy via voting I know you will say but really 32% of shareholders do not have that Co op "one man one vote" democracy and those that do are afraid of their share value to demand a proper value for their shares

Seeing as no shareholder has ever had their shares converted against their will, that argument doesn't hold water. Feel free to challenge the officials.

On the board members, their primary responsibility lies in ensuring the future of the company and is little different to the responsibilities conferred on board members of public and private companies. If you feel they are not fulfilling their responsibilities, you have the right to contact ICOS and find your options regarding making a complaint. Indeed, as part of the Co-op ethos, you would have a near obligation to follow up on that complaint.

http://icos.ie/contact/

On the C shareholders, the proposal to have 3 types of shareholding with different rights and responsibilities was brought before the shareholders and voted in favour of by the required majority. Either yourself or whomever you acquired your shares off would have been entitled to vote in favour of or against that proposal. That ship has sailed. Current voting rights are fully compliant with the regulations governing Co-ops.

fepper

No

As shareholders,we are questioning what exactly are the benefits the board members think shareholders will have by ensuring the future of this company,why all conversions before if the company's future is so important now...

Buford T. Justice XIX

fepper wrote: »

As shareholders,we are questioning what exactly are the benefits the board members think shareholders will have by ensuring the future of this company,why all conversions before if the company's future is so important now...

That's a question to address to the board. And the reasons for not considering a conversion were explained at the last AGM and the last two shareholders meetings...

BannerBarry

No

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Seeing as no shareholder has ever had their shares converted against their will, that argument doesn't hold water. Feel free to challenge the officials.

On the board members, their primary responsibility lies in ensuring the future of the company and is little different to the responsibilities conferred on board members of public and private companies. If you feel they are not fulfilling their responsibilities, you have the right to contact ICOS and find your options regarding making a complaint. Indeed, as part of the Co-op ethos, you would have a near obligation to follow up on that complaint.

http://icos.ie/contact/

On the C shareholders, the proposal to have 3 types of shareholding with different rights and responsibilities was brought before the shareholders and voted in favour of by the required majority. Either yourself or whomever you acquired your shares off would have been entitled to vote in favour of or against that proposal. That ship has sailed. Current voting rights are fully compliant with the regulations governing Co-ops.

One of the core arguments Deloitte are arguing in your patronage share tax fight is the shares can be redeemed at par from the C shareholders at any time. You may be diluting this argument publicly now and costing milk suppliers in this case.

If I was allowed attend the AGM as a Co op member I would voice my concerns. I am not allowed attend even though I am farming. Again the Co op ethos is one man one vote.... except Kerry "Co Op"

This Co ops purpose is Investment in other companies. Refer last year accounts.
I believe there is a split interest with the Directors in their duties as farmers and that of managing a €1.6billion book value company without the qualifications or authority to do so.

fepper

No

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

That's a question to address to the board. And the reasons for not considering a conversion were explained at the last AGM and the last two shareholders meetings...

In fairness,the excuses are tiresome at this stage,it will be something else at this years AGM but the boards overall functions are to make sure these issues are well sorted at board level meetings and how some shareholders have confidence at this stage is staggering.....that last conversion was in 2013 and then told us nearly 3yrs later that it mightn't be compliant with tax laws and then treated like schoolchildren to stay quiet about it and would you think this is professional practice by a coop board that you have confidence in still??....

Buford T. Justice XIX

BannerBarry wrote: »

One of the core arguments Deloitte are arguing in your patronage share tax fight is the shares can be redeemed at par from the C shareholders at any time. You may be diluting this argument publicly now and costing milk suppliers in this case.

If I was allowed attend the AGM as a Co op member I would voice my concerns. I am not allowed attend even though I am farming. Again the Co op ethos is one man one vote.... except Kerry "Co Op"

This Co ops purpose is Investment in other companies. Refer last year accounts.
I believe there is a split interest with the Directors in their duties as farmers and that of managing a €1.6billion book value company without the qualifications or authority to do so.

In fact, all directors are fully qualified to be board members. Again, if you believe otherwise, you can inform ICOS of your concerns.

And as there are many different forms and purposes of Co-ops, your argument that they aren't a Co-op again doesn't stand up. Again, an email or phone call to ICOS will confirm that.

Buford T. Justice XIX

fepper wrote: »

In fairness,the excuses are tiresome at this stage,it will be something else at this years AGM but the boards overall functions are to make sure these issues are well sorted at board level meetings and how some shareholders have confidence at this stage is staggering.....that last conversion was in 2013 and then told us nearly 3yrs later that it mightn't be compliant with tax laws and then treated like schoolchildren to stay quiet about it and would you think this is professional practice by a coop board that you have confidence in still??....

The vast majority of shareholders have no concerns about the board.

The only people voicing any concerns are posting here. And I say that as someone meeting shareholders, A, B and Cs, every day.

fepper

No

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

The vast majority of shareholders have no concerns about the board.

The only people voicing any concerns are posting here. And I say that as someone meeting shareholders, A, B and Cs, every day.

At last years AGM,lots of speakers were questioning the existence of Kerry coop now and I'm sure that momentum has strengthened for the next agm

BannerBarry

No

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

In fact, all directors are fully qualified to be board members. Again, if you believe otherwise, you can inform ICOS of your concerns.

And as there are many different forms and purposes of Co-ops, your argument that they aren't a Co-op again doesn't stand up. Again, an email or phone call to ICOS will confirm that.

Kerry Co op are affiliated to ICOS and pay a membership fee to ICOS.
They are not governed by ICOS.

Any complaints on the entitlements of the board to run a €1.6 billion investment holding company should be directed to the Financial Services Regulatory Authority to ensure they are entitle to act as Director of such a large holding company. I presume you mean we should check with the Financial Regularly Authority?

fepper

No

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

The vast majority of shareholders have no concerns about the board.

But the vast majority have also concerns about the boards usefulness and high expenses they're claiming at the expense of shareholders dividends and not adding any extra value to our shares by their continued management as Kerry plc already provide for all dividend payout...and you still haven't given 1 reason why Kerry coop is good for Kerry coop shareholders only defending the general coop ethic here

Buford T. Justice XIX

BannerBarry wrote: »

Kerry Co op are affiliated to ICOS and pay a membership fee to ICOS.
They are not governed by ICOS.

Any complaints on the entitlements of the board to run a €1.6 billion investment holding company should be directed to the Financial Services Regulatory Authority to ensure they are entitle to act as Director of such a large holding company. I presume you mean we should check with the Financial Regularly Authority?

If you have concerns then bring those up with them. And please let us know how you got on.

If they uphold your position, i will gladly concede you were right.

Buford T. Justice XIX

fepper wrote: »

But the vast majority have also concerns about the boards usefulness and high expenses they're claiming at the expense of shareholders dividends and not adding any extra value to our shares by their continued management as Kerry plc already provide for all dividend payout...and you still haven't given 1 reason why Kerry coop is good for Kerry coop shareholders only defending the general coop ethic here

The vast majority?

I met 14 shareholders today from all 3 classes and from all over the geographical area that Kerry draws supplies from and not one expressed any concern about the board.

Indeed, when I asked one lady if she had concerns similar to yours, she replied that some people would prefer to set their house on fire to warm their hands which I thought was a good summary of seeking a conversion at this moment in time.