TWA truth is revealed ...

[Roy Hersh]

Wow, this development should be interesting to follow ... http://www.decanter.com/news/wine-news/ ... e-merchant

[Andy Velebil]

Love this quote from his wife...

As of 26 November 2012 Soo Hoo himself is also listed as a majority shareholder of Hermitage Wine, although he has recently left the company.

Ms Ng Choo Ping confirmed to Decanter.com that she ‘is and will continue to be a director of Hermitage Wine.’

this was RP's response to that article...

"I have not taken on any investor with ANY interest in the wine business.To have done so would be stupid,and create a major conflict of interest.Moreover, the investors recognize the significance of TWA's independence and hard-earned credibility,and along with me, are fully committed to this.One of the investors was required...in order to invest in TWA, to sell their interest in a wine company,as this was an abolute prerequisite to participation), and that was done....if any of the wives of these investors have an interest, I am 100% certain it has been sold or is in the process of being sold as these transactions can unfold over several months before all T's are crossed and I's are dotted...once again , this is much to do about nothing,and is aimed at distracting people from an exciting new chapter of TWA."

Again, another RP blunder. I must say RP is NOT good at getting his ducks in a row, handling the media, and certain marketing announcements. epic fail!

[Ray Barnes]

I seem to recall receiving an email, as a WA subscriber, by Mr. Parker claiming that he has not relinquished control of the WA but accepted investment into it while retaining control. Somehow, taking this new revelation into account, the whole arrangement is worrisome.

[Rob C.]

This article seems only half thought-out.

In the UK, transfers of shareholdings (apart from transfers by directors/major shareholdings in a listed company) would only be revealed in searches at the central registry when a company files its annual return (i.e. once a year!). I have no idea whether this is the same for Singapore...but these Decanter journos don't seem to have asked the question.

Secondly, the statement that the wife "is and will continue to be a director of Hermitage Wine" does not tell us anything about whether she "is and will continue to be" a shareholder. Either way she would still hold an "interest" (under most interpretations of such phrase), and i suspect it would be unlikely for her to stay as a director at this type of company if she has disposed of her shareholding, but the manner in which the concepts are conflated in this article makes me think that attention to detail has gone out of the window at the decanter offices in search of their "scoop"!

What's more, unless the lawyers advising Parker on this arrangement were absolute numpties or there was a serious imbalance in negotiation positions, it would be entirely standard for a shareholders agreement to regulate these types of matters and provide for e.g.: the disenfranchisement of investors where they take on / maintain outside interests that are not permitted.



[edit: link to Singapore Companies Act - i don't think there's an obligation to file changes in share transfers until the annual return is filed after each annual general meeting - see sections 128A and 197 (together with Schedule 8). I await confirmation from a Singaporean colleague! But, for the princely sum of $1SGD, Decanter could have inspected the register of shareholders held at the Hermitage Wine's registered office (this register being required to be kept up-to-date throughout the year, and available for public inspection). Did they bother to investigate? Not clear from this article that they did...]

[Andy Velebil]

Rob,

I believe someone did check offical registrars on another wine forum and it still showed he and his wife as shareholders. Not surprising given such recent developments.

The issue comes up as his wife has publicly stated she isn't leaving Hermatige Wine. That's a major conflict of interest, regardless if she is an employee and/or a shareholder, and one Parker should have looked into and dealt with prior to making such an announcement. He had to have known the wine peeps would soon find out who the investors were and all about their backgrounds. Again, Parker has shown his apt for putting the cart before the horse. And that is where all the brew-ha-ha is now focused given the Wine Advocates stanch polices regarding conflict of interest, etc (think of the recent issues with Jay Miller). Had Parker simply gotten all his ducks in a row first, prior to the press release, these issues probably wouldn't have surfaced.

[Roy Hersh]

+1