Irate shareholders demand Press wind-up

There were calls for Irish Press plc to be wound up yesterday from some shareholders following another stormy annual general …

There were calls for Irish Press plc to be wound up yesterday from some shareholders following another stormy annual general meeting in Dublin.

The chairman of the group, Eamon de Valera, defended his stewardship of the group and said the directors were investigating several investment possibilities. The company has substantial cash holdings and its investments are now worth over €6 million.

Mr de Valera said the company had studied several different investment targets, but they were not appropriate for the company. "This has not been in any way a passive search," he said.

He also told the agm representations were continuing on the issue of the Thoms street directory, which is owned by the company.

READ MORE

Because of provisions in the Electoral Act, the company can no longer get access to the electoral register, which means compiling the directory could become impossible.

Mr de Valera said he continued to make representations to Government representatives. "I hope the door is not finally closed." Thoms is one of the company's most important assets. Mr de Valera reported that its other major asset - a 59 per cent share in Tipp FM - was performing strongly.

Despite his upbeat comments, the chairman was subjected to strong criticism throughout the meeting.

But his 464,803 shares meant there was never any danger that any of the four proposed resolutions would be defeated, despite the presence of a vocal group of dissident shareholders.

One shareholder told Mr de Valera it was time to liquidate the company and return value to shareholders. However, Mr de Valera said there was no motion proposing such a move and he did not believe there was support for such an idea among most shareholders.

Mr de Valera was subjected to constant questioning throughout the meeting from a small group of shareholders.

One shareholder called Mr de Valera a "bully", while another said it was not right to have one shareholder effectively controlling the company.