The Royal Resorts Groups - From what I know they appear to have been VERY CAREFUL not to sign anything other then maybe our first “expired” agreement between the Pelican Resort & Royal Resorts Group…… They have formed how many "DUMMY CORPORATIONS" since?
1. RR MANAGEMENT CO., LTD.
2. RR MARKETING CO., LTD.
3. Trident Sales & Marketing, LTD
4. Friendly Island Properties, LTD
The above has signed all if not most of the Agreements and contract to date… Maybe more corporations and deals we don’t know of?
My concerns are WHY would they have set up all these "DUMMY CORPS" in the first place? Why so many?
Royal Resorts Group – Publicly states they are the Management Company for the Pelican Resort Club, but on paper are they really?
I will be looking into the reason for a parent company to set up many “dummy Corporations”. I will be posting my findings under comments on this subject during the coming days.
The History of the Pelican Resort Club, St.Maarten
The main goal of this site will be to keep owners informed of past and future events of the resort. More sites – links and comments will follow so be sure to check back often. I have tried really hard to be factual on the events posted below. I ask all of you to help keep me straight on these issues below and what issues may follow. In all fairness I had given up on Pelican just after the take over by RRG in the way of the voting rights they are in possession of. I had hoped they would do the right thing and listen to what owners wanted. After ten years we are no better off then we were since first hiring RRG. In my opinion we are heading for another bankruptcy. History is repeating itself if one would only open their eyes to see. Is it greed and or corruption at foot here, I can’t say for sure. Let me ask you this if I may? At the Annual General Meeting of last Dec 2006 with 2 lawyers, accounting firm, RRG, TAPRC and Judy Young present they in fact tried to use the 508 FIP votes of units in default. Had they used any of these same-defaulted on unit votes any prior years? Now that has to make some of you wonder – just who is looking out for us owners? I don’t just make this stuff up. This type of thing has been going on since day 1. Just look up St.Maarten on the U.S. Department of State. They warn of a large number of complaints about misuse of maintenance fees. Is this true, I think we need to find out. Lets all help each other in getting to the truth here.
Posting a comment:
Posting a comment to this site might be a bit confusing for some. First step is to click on “comments” under each topic.
2nd type your comment.
3rd If you don’t have a Google account as with many, you may post with checking the “other” option and just type in your name in the new area that opens or check the “anonymous” option.
Last preview or post. That’s it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Conventional corporate law norms of majority rule and centralized control can lead to serious problems for the close corporation minority shareholder. Traditionally, most corporate power is centralized in the hands of a board of directors. In a close corporation, the board is ordinarily controlled - “by the shareholder, shareholders holding a majority of the voting power”. Through this control of the board, the majority shareholder has the ability to take actions that are harmful to the minority shareholder’s interests. Such actions are often referred to as “freeze-out” or “squeeze-out” techniques that “oppress” the close corporation minority shareholder. Common freeze-out techniques include the termination of a minority shareholder’s employment, the refusal to declare dividends, the removal of a minority shareholder from a position of management, and the siphoning of corporate earnings through high compensation to the majority shareholder. Quite often, these tactics are used in combination. For example, the close corporation investor typically looks to salary rather than dividends for a share of the business returns because the “earnings of a close corporation often are distributed in major part in salaries, bonuses and retirement
Benefits.” When actual dividends are not paid, therefore, a minority shareholder that is discharged from employment and removed from the board of directors is effectively denied any return on his or her investment as well as any input into the management of the business. Once the minority shareholder is faced with this “Indefinite future with no return on the capital he or she contributed to the enterprise,” the majority often proposes to purchase the shares of the minority
Shareholder at an unfairly low price.
Post a Comment