By: Modesto P. Sa-onoy
We are lucky that both parties came out with press statements that we can use to compare where the most probable credibility lies and who are making wild claims.
In my column on this issue last December 19, I asked the Yanson 3 or their lawyers to release to the public documents backing up their aggressive assertions that: (1) the Yanson 4 meeting of December 7 was “irregular”, (2) the Yanson 4 are “impostor stockholders”, (3) the Yanson 3 are the “controlling stockholders”; and (4) the names listed as elected directors of the Yanson 3 meeting are all stockholders.
A week had passed but we heard nothing of the charges, maybe they are too busy with the Christmas season. However, the request remains even after the holidays and the present digression of the claims of both sides based on their press releases.
The issue of which Annual Stockholders’ Meeting of the two contending parties is legitimate hinges on who is telling the truth. One must be a rump meeting, the other legitimate. They cannot both be legitimate. One must be lying, the other truthful. They cannot be both truthful.
First, the Yanson 3 claimed that the Yanson 4 meeting was “irregular”. How so? The Yanson 3 did not make any specific citation – that was just a general statement uncorroborated by facts. Did the presence of the Securities and Exchange Commission representative make it irregular? Is it improper to invite a representative of the government to witness a proceeding over which this agency exercises regulatory and supervisory authority?
More so, is not the presence of SEC an indication that the Yanson 4 have nothing to hide, that they were exercising their corporate rights within the bounds of law and were honest and open to having a government presentative present? How can that be irregular? Any law against it?
The Yanson 3 accused the SEC of “interference” considering the intra-corporate conflict. Did the SEC representative discuss the issues, give the Yanson 4 legal advice even in a side whisper or egged on the Yanson 4 to fight?
It is a sweeping statement to accuse the SEC of interference without citing specific incidents or actions that SEC performed during that ASM. The Yanson 3 failed to say anything more than the broad accusation of meddling. The SEC was forced to take out a paid advertisement to deny the Yanson 3 claim, albeit speculative.
The Yanson 3 did not answer or refute the SEC which suggests the denunciation against SEC was a diversionary tactic to becloud the issue. The good outcome of lambasting the SEC is that the Yanson 3 exposed the weakness of their claim to legality and regularity of their ASM. However, I will not wander off into that unless necessary.
The next issue raised by the Yanson 3 is that the Yanson 4 are “impostor stockholders, directors and officers of VTI”. These are strong, wide-ranging accusations and it behooves the Yanson 3 to show cause for this assertion. Have the Yanson 4 ceased to be members of the family, have they lost all their shares, have they become anathema to the Yanson 3? Are the Yanson 4 fakers?
Or perhaps the Yanson 3 are already making a judgement that the case filed by Olivia Yanson to disinherit her four siblings has already been decided by the court and therefore they no longer have a share in the inheritance of Olivia. But that was Olivia’s assets, not shares. Moreover, when were the Yanson 4 stripped of their shares of stocks in VTI as to be reduced to the status of impostors? By whom?
But let us leave those words for what they are – whistles in the wind or maybe they are the real impostors using reverse psychology tactics. Nevertheless, the Yanson 3 have the responsibility to tell the public how Roy, Emily, Celina and Ricky have become “non-Yansons” as to be impostors to the names listed in the company’s stockholders. This is like Ali Baba saying the caliph was the thief.
They must also show the records of the SEC indicating that these four have no shares in the company. I believe they could not so do because either the statement declaring the Yanson 4 as impostors is a complete lie or merely spite or lack of anything truthful to say.
Let’s continue tomorrow.
