GLP ownership structure is changing

[WallaceinAnderland]

.

lol an offshore trust 😆😆 but yes of course they are fighting "the man"

'he wanted the public interest features of a charity but outside of the moving political guardrails policed by the Charity Commission'

Well that sounds familiar.

Tax lawyer gonna tax lawyer...

In Jersey.

Him and Richard Tice.

Is it just me or does this look like an escape plan?

i listened to a great podcast interview with Joylon and a bloke who was a fan of JM’s dad. They had a bit of a love in. But he talks about the GLP structure which was all about him getting to be a one man crusader… maybe losing all those cases means he is looking for others to blame?!

(ETA - I mean it must be getting embarrassing now)

will see if I can find it. Was entertaining for the ridiculous word salad of feel good buzz words, while failing to mention the trans rights which are sought eg the right to punch women in the face in order to win Olympic medals etc

Here it is
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/peter-yorks-culture-wars-house-party/id1784993018?i=1000730966388

Aye. He's torched his personal image, now he needs some more patsies to share the opprobrium.

But he's still in ultimate control, of course...

Must have a look and see what Sarah Phillimore has to say about this.

he will be the “person with significant control”

Why the inverted commas. Another spin?

I think because it is a legal term.

A person with significant control (PSC) is someone who owns or controls your company. They’re sometimes called ‘beneficial owners’.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/people-with-significant-control-pscs

Yes all registered companies have to declare who this is. I think it can be one or more of the directors. The articles of association will say how many directors are needed to make decisions and move money etc. if someone can find the company listing we can see how many shares have been made and get an idea on how many “pattsies” he’s looking for

The PSCs will be shareholders rather than directors (although they may be both). It's about who owns shares and has voting rights in the company.

By any chance, does this put ol'Joly further from any legal, financial or otherwise detrimental liabilities that may come in the GLPs direction?

And conversely does it have any function where his personal income could increase?

Ah, there we go.

Gawd, he'll be floating himself on the stock exchange at this rate.

Here's what will happen. He'll find some trans and other patsies to be Trustees.

A few months of the GLP losing stuff, and those trans and other Trustees being flamed on Bluesky for not being perfect enough, and slowly they will start to drop out.

Especially when they realise that they have legal duties to whatever construct it is that he is cooking up.

He had no liability in relation to GLP before these changes. He's not a director and he would have no personal liability as shareholder other than possibly unpaid share capital

Probably the new trustees won’t even be paid.

I was once asked to be a voluntary trustee of a struggling community organisation. When I read the small print it was clear I could be potentially and personally on the hook for losses, debts and liabilities.

Funnily enough, I didn’t fancy having the stress of potentially losing my house over previous trustees’ poor decisions, so felt I had to decline. The whole thing was effectively a pyramid scheme built on screwing grants out of the increasingly skint council, and paying one rather forceful founding director/CEO/leader-type-person a salary.

Not being paid and having the responsibilities legally are pretty normal and the whole point. Being a trustee is exactly about accountability and someone keeping an eye on the charity.

I don't know what the hell you thought the role was for!

I forgot GLP is limited by guarantee. JMs liability for GLP is limited to £1

JM is ticked that the High Court found GLP didn't have standing in it's application for Judicial Review of the EHRC interim guidance. Mr Justice Swift said:

"The Good Law Project Limited is not personally or directly affected by the decision challenged in this case. I accept that it has a sincere interest in the subject matter of the case but that is not enough to establish the “sufficient interest” required by section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. "

If GLP had been a charity, it probably would have standing: see for example Laing LJ overruling Lieven J (who had denied Sex Matters standing to bring Judicial Review of the Hamsptead Ponds issue) - "That aspect of the Judge’s [Lieven's] judgment is wrong, not least because, as A points out, the statutory scheme also envisages an application for judicial review (section 113(3) of the Equality Act 2010). As A also points out, this part of the decision appears to contradict many authorities in which it has been held that expert charities do have standing to bring claims for judicial review, even where individuals can also do so."

I think this is JM's attempt to get as close to being a charity as possible, without putting GLP under the jurisdiction of the Charity Commission, which, he feels, would fetter his freedoms.

I think this is JM's attempt to get as close to being a charity as possible, without putting GLP under the jurisdiction of the Charity Commission, which, he feels, would fetter his freedoms.

The first paragraph of FK's announcement suggests that very strongly.

"When Good Law Project was set up in 2017 by Jolyon Maugham he wanted the public interest features of a charity but outside of the moving political guardrails policed by the Charity Commission."

It’s rather like being a trans charity.

He’s attempting to have the appearance of a charity - but isn’t a genuine charity with the daily reality of what being a charity actually means.

He’s one of the most crooked lawyers I’ve come across. Helps briefings are so error laden.

He’s completely candid about that in the podcast interview. It’s obviously his vehicle for pursuing projects of interest. A vanity project i suppose, to give him some salience.

What does this mean for the Director who is also a Director of Mumsnet?