Crowdcube request to change Investor Nominee Terms


(George Reith) #188

This is not true. There are plenty of disadvantages in the new terms. What you are saying is you “promise” to only use them to negatively impact us in exceptional circumstances.

Now do I trust you to do that? No. If you only intend to utilise certain terms in certain conditions make that part of the conditions. Specify when fees will occur. If you are asking for the open ended right to charge fees then I can only assume you intend to use that right.

Put that you have added the ability to charge fees in your summary of the terms on the vote page and restart the vote. There is a reason it isn’t there, it is misleading and I intend to involve the ombudsman if this is not handled correctly.


(Douglas ) #189

I’m trying to pick out the positives in both responses. I’m really struggling .
It’s lip service at best.
Are the terms fair ?
Which third party is monitoring this vote ?
Has the communication included a full disclosure not just a summary ?
Did Monzo issue the vote or Crowd cube ?
I’m voting no


#190

It is worrying to give someone the right to deduct your money, even if they promise not to.
Four scenarios.

  1. they don’t take your money (youre no worse or better off)
  2. they change their mind and charge you fees (youre worse off)
  3. they get taken over and the new owners decide to charge fees they are allowed to charge (you’re worse off)
  4. they go bust and an administrator charges you as they are allowed to (you’re worse off)

Why would you vote yes?
Why would monzo think this was in everyone’s interest? I wonder what the alternative was?


#191

If you can list one thing that is improved in these new terms then I will not make a complaint to the FCA about the language Crowdcube used and continues to use to hype these new terms.

As mentioned throughout this discussion no one has been able to identify the improvements that you allege. It appears to be a deterioration of terms from the investors perspective so unless you can clarify what the improvements are then I think it is very misleading to keep talking about improvements.


(Kenny Grant) #192

Hi Hannah, can you explain why you’re changing the terms?


(Gareth) #193

Point 1 vs Point 1, 2, (4) and (8). As shown by JamesBell who did not realise how the share ownership worked.


(Intra) #194

I said No!


(Intra) #195

I lost money on that … luckily a small amount. One investor lost 100K. A real scandal right there.


(Intra) #196

This really annoyed me as potentially three huge investors could decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of small ones


(Simon Austin) #197

Hi Hannah,

Thanks for taking the time to join the conversation.

Regarding this:

We would also like to confirm that the vote for this proposed change closes on 18 March 2019, so please do take your time making your decision.

We have already spoken privately about my request to change my answer and you have advised that it is not possible, however surely there is no technical reason or corporate objection as to why this could not be accommodated?

If there is genuinely no way that you can kindly assist (pretty please :heart_eyes:) then is it worth including in your FAQ that any vote is cast in stone and cannot be changed ?

Thank you in advance for your (re)consideration :slight_smile:


(Alex Moore) #198

One additional aspect I have queried (waiting for a response from Crowdcube) is why the terms of the Declaration of Trust that was made to me personally is subject to a community vote in order to make changes to it.


(Lyndsey Sharpe) #199

Can someone give me a link to the poll? I’ve received nothing from monzo even though I invested in the last round. I want to vote no also
Thanks


(Adam) #200

You have already accepted the terms in the last round.

This is for investors of pervious rounds.


(Jason Artemis Winstanley) #201

If you invested in the most recent round, you are already on the new terms with no ability to move off them. Sorry.


#202

This article has got Crowdcube co-founder Luke Lang on record.


(Hannah Rowe) #203

To be completely clear, in circumstances where there is fraud, negligence or breach on Crowdcube’s part we cannot use the assets to cover any loss. In circumstances outside of these, then we can use the value of the shares held in trust to cover any losses. For example, if we were directed by investors to act or vote in a certain way and, as a result of this action, other shareholders took action against the Nominee, we could use the assets of the investors in that company who have shares held by the nominee to defend or settle that case. I hope that helps clarify this point.


(Hannah Rowe) #204

We have worked closely with Monzo to coordinate this, and both ourselves and Monzo saw the benefit of all investors being on these new improved terms. As Crowdcube holds the legal title to investors shares in Monzo, we are required to issue the vote, which has been done in collaboration with Monzo. With regard to full disclosure, the document you have been sent to vote on includes all the details of the updated terms. I hope that provides clarification but please just let me know if you have any further queries.


(Hannah Rowe) #205

As an example, we would like to talk about one hypothetical scenario that is a change for the better, this is if Monzo needs to amend their Articles due to a grammatical error. Under the proposed new terms, Monzo would provide this information to us in the form of a written resolution. We would review it and in this example, deem that it doesn’t directly impact investors. Under the old terms, we would have to put that out to a vote and risk it being voted down if only a minority of investors respond. Under the new terms, if it is that clear it will not directly impact investors, we can make the decision, inform investors that we have made that decision, and execute. This allows for the change to be made quickly to the benefit of Monzo and its investors.


(Hannah Rowe) #206

Both Crowdcube and Monzo wanted to give investors the opportunity to vote on proposed changes to the nominee terms, which would make them consistent with investors from Monzo’s latest crowdfunding round. This will mean that, regardless of which funding round you invested in, you will be held under the same terms as all other investors, if the majority of shareholders vote in favour of the proposed change.


#207

After reading all this, I’ve voted no. Being on the same terms reduces friction for crowdcube in the case of any issues. Being on separate terms means they can’t be treated as all one block and probably works in investors favour as opposed to crowdcubes.

I’m not entirely sure the new terms are worse, but they aren’t better and the communication around it and the careful language used makes me wary.

The first thing that should have been answered is why this is deemed necessary to do in the first place, what does it matter if we’re on the old terms? They won’t be touched until Monzo IPOs? That question has yet to be answered in a clear, plain english, manner and I feel most of the benefit will go to crowdcube.