By: Modesto P. Sa-onoy
Before the close of the year 2019, I cited the allegation of the Yanson 3 that the other siblings were impostors. The term is common enough to be understood as to present one’s self by deceit to be one who is not. To call the four Yanson siblings as impostors raise the question of how and when they presented themselves to be what they were not. It seems that to the mind of the Yanson 3, the other Yansons are fake stockholders of Vallacar Transit Incorporated. Conversely, the Yanson 3 are presumed the authentic stockholders.
The Yanson 3 should reveal how the Yanson 4 lost their identities and shares of stock in the company or was that claim merely a construct?
As I had pointed out earlier, the battle now among the siblings is who has the bigger chunk of the company share. The Yanson 4 claimed they owned over 61% of the company shares. How many do the Yanson 3 hold? I am inclined to believe that they hold less otherwise they would have stated publicly how much they owned. But they did not do so although that is the easiest way to convince the public that they are indeed the majority stockholders. That they did not show means they do not have the majority shares.
Anyway, even at this late stage, the Yanson 3 can still reveal their shareholdings in VTI.
This is important because not only did they claim the Yanson 4 are fakes, but also because they conducted a stockholder’s annual assembly and elected their own board of directors. Without telling the public their shareholding, the Yanson 3 claimed they have a quorum. That is not surprising. There are corporate entities that simply declared they had a quorum although they did not, provided nobody questioned the claim. Well, somebody is raising the question.
In the Yanson 3 meeting, they elected certain personalities that do not belong to the Yanson family. They are close friends of Olivia or their lawyers and advisers but even their names show they are not of the Yanson blood.
This raises some questions. First, the Yanson Constitution prohibited the election of any person to the board of VTI unless he or she is a direct descendant of Ricardo and Olivia Yanson. Are those elected by the Yanson 3 of the Yanson blood, direct descendants as defined in the family constitution? Of course not, but direct descendance does not matter to the Yanson 3 because they tore into pieces the document drawn up by Ricardo and signed by all of them. Consequently, the provisions of that constitution no longer applied.
Still a question arises. When did the non-Yansons obtain shares of stocks of VTI? Did they buy the shares, were they mere beneficiaries – what?
However, the Yanson 4 claim, and the family constitution likewise provided, that the VTI Articles of Incorporation and By-laws limits the sale of the shares to family members and the existing shareholders have the right of first refusal. Was there notice and did the Yanson 4 waive their prior right?
Anyway, these issues will be resolved by the court. As I wrote earlier, this issue is an easy one in the sense that the claims can be proven by arithmetically showing who has the bigger share.
A year had passed since this Yanson family feud erupted in the public domain. I believe that the issues are now clear to the public and in fact, several had taken sides. The discussions had exhausted the arguments by both parties.
The Yanson 4 had filed cases against the PNP and the police who forced their way into the VTI compound. They will have to prove that the use of force without a court warrant to install a private security guard is part of their function. For them until the cases against them are resolved by the Ombudsman they cannot retire with gratuities and they should pray that whoever ordered them to take extra-legal actions will foot their bill and their pensions.
A man close to Ricardo Yanson asked me how this feud will end. I said, they can end it anytime. The court cannot end the hatred that can be passed on to the next generation. The real solution rests with the family.
