The Osea Park company

[Erik Narramore]

I believe June and Ann were at par in controlling the Company at the time of the shootings.

Nevill was certainly involved, as was Robert, but I always thought the shares were in the names of the two women, June and Ann, and Jeremy was brought in as part of giving him a stake in things.  I note that the family have continued that tradition of female-direction of the holiday park up to this day.

I may be mistaken, but my understanding is that Jeremy already had a share, but that could have been taken from Jean's share, so it's not necessarily the case that he more than Ann, and even if he did, company law doesn't quite work that way.  To control a company, a shareholder would need at least greater than 50%, and preferably at least 75%, otherwise he can be hindered by minority shareholders.  It could also be that the constitution of the company - its Articles of Association - were crafted by lawyers to allow for a cross-family management situation such as this.

This is why I think the whole thing needs deeper investigation, not just off-hand glib utterances of 'he controlled this, he controlled that'.  I appreciate the Eatons and Boutflours were not lawyers and may have made certain assumptions that drove their motives, but they were businesspeople and would have had regular consultations with their private lawyers and developed some understanding of the true situation.

[Erik Narramore]

Robert Boutflour would not have needed Jeremy's knowledge or permission to remove him as a director.  I do wonder why Jeremy remained as a director on paper for so long, but I suspect it was just that the Companies House records had not been updated.

You make a fair point that just as it could be observed that Jeremy would conveniently inherit everything on the death of the rest of his immediate adoptive family and the twins, a similar observation could be made of the extended family in regard to all of the Bambers, including Jeremy, and this could have influenced their attitude to Jeremy as a potential suspect.

However, one important difference is that none of the extended family is seriously considered a suspect in the killings, whereas even if you think Jeremy is innocent, you cannot deny that he was always a viable suspect.

[Erik Narramore]

Jeremy was a director.  Possibly, Jeremy remained entitled to director's fees and bonuses even after his conviction.

That would depend on what documentation was in place between the Company and its directors and what those documents said.  The Company would also have had a detailed constitution in the form of Articles of Association and the Companies Act (as it was then) applied.  In the absence of anything specific, you would expect that Jeremy would be entitled to reasonable remuneration for any services rendered to the Company.  The position would be still more complicated if Jeremy claimed he was an employee of the Company as opposed to a director simply providing services to the Company.

If they Company wanted to refuse to pay him because he had been imprisoned, I think the remaining directors would have to prove bad faith on his part in the conduct of his duties for the Company.