Former chief executive fails in bid to oust Stobart Group chair

Former Stobart chief executive Andrew Tinkler has failed in his bid to oust the company’s chairman, and was thwarted in his attempt to regain a seat on the board at Friday’s annual general meeting.

According to a Financial Times report, 51.2% of shareholders supported chairman Iain Ferguson’s re-election at the meeting in St Peter Port, Guernsey.

However, the storm clouds hanging over the Carlisle based group show no sign of clearing.

The firm’s chief financial officer Richard Laycock resigned just hours ahead of its annual general meeting.

Richard Laycock was promoted to the role in February after four years as group finance director, and eight years with the company.

The company said that Laycock would not be putting himself up for election at the meeting.

The board has been torn apart by in-fighting and threats of legal action.

Stobart declared at 4.24pm on Friday afternoon that the counting of the votes regarding AGM resolutions was continuing, and the results of the ballot would not be known that day.

The results were reportedly released by the board at 7.21pm on Saturday evening.

Mr Tinkler was apparently elected to the board briefly when a motion at the meeting was passed by 51.4%, but the other directors removed him again.

Mr Ferguson was quoted after the meeting saying: “This is an important day for corporate governance in the UK and for ensuring that the interests of all shareholders are fairly represented and protected.

“We will be meeting with all of our colleagues face-to-face over the coming weeks to address concerns and explain our plans for ongoing growth as a united team.”

It was expected that if Mr Tinkler had succeeded in regaining a role as director, several of his board colleagues would have resigned.

Mr Ferguson said: “It would not be in the best interests of the company for him to act as a director.”

However, reports emerged last night that Mr Ferguson has discussed with boardroom colleagues a proposal to recruit a new chairman before next year’s annual meeting, with one insider claiming directors “acknowledged the need to look at the composition of the board”.

Mr Tinkler is expected to issue a statement regarding the AGM.

Stobart’s largest shareholder, Invesco, which holds 25%, supported Mr Ferguson.

However, according to one insider, the war between Mr Tinkler and the board is likely to rumble on.

Mr Tinkler was sacked from the board on June 14, in a row over his bid to unseat Mr Ferguson and replace him with his own nominee, North West entrepreneur Philip Day, the owner of Peacocks and Edinburgh Woollen Mill.

Announcing his dismissal, the board also revealed that it would be taking legal action against the former chief executive.

Mr Tinkler has launched defamation proceedings against Stobart’s board.

In a letter to shareholders, independent director Andrew Wood explained the board’s decision, saying Mr Tinkler’s actions ran totally counter to the firm’s management strategy.

He wrote: “It is his right as a shareholder to propose a change.

“However, his wider actions, particularly in writing to all employees, have now threatened to destabilise the company and have put at risk the interests of all shareholders.”

Last Friday the Stobart board revealed it had blocked an attempt by Mr Tinkler to be re-elected as a director at the AGM, after a Guernsey court backed a call to keep Mr Tinkler’s name off Friday’s ballot.

Following the court’s judgment a spokesman for Stobart Group said: “The board has a duty to ensure to act in the interests of all shareholders and maintain the high standards of corporate governance that it has established over the last four years.”

Earlier last week, the board of the Carlisle-based group urged shareholders to reject any attempt by Mr Tinkler to gain re-election at the AGM.

Last Monday the board issued a statement revealing that Mr Tinkler had served notice, on June 28, that he intended to propose himself for election to the board at the AGM.

The statement continued: “For the reasons set out in the company’s announcements of 14th and 15th June 2018, the board considers, were a resolution to appoint Mr Tinkler as a director to be proposed, that its passing would not be in the best interests of the company and shareholders as a whole.”

And it insisted: “Accordingly, the board recommends that the shareholders vote against any resolution to appoint Mr Tinkler as a director, if proposed at the Annual General Meeting.”