Shareholders 'locked in' at Guyana Stores
-no annual general meeting since 2001 Business December 10, 2004
Stabroek News
December 10, 2004

Related Links: Articles on Business December 10, 2004
Letters Menu Archival Menu


The 1561 shareholders of Guyana Stores Ltd (GSL) which has yet to turn a profit in the four years since it was privatised and has not been issuing annual reports or holding annual general meetings, are unable to trade their stocks.

Chairman Tony Yassin says the problem is the court case brought by the government trying to recover the US$2M balance of the US$6M sale price. Yassin says the fortunes of the company were predicated on government agencies continuing to make purchases which has not been the case.

He says no annual report can be prepared when the valuation of the assets are still under question. CEO of the Guyana Securites Council Cheryl Ibbott says the company has confirmed the position in a letter, but until the reports are submitted to the council no trading is allowed. She says GSL has assured her that its accounts are being audited.

As for the company's fortunes Yassin only says "doing business in Guyana is rough" and his message to shareholders is that GSL "certainly would have liked to turn a profit but unfortunately it was not possible." He conceded that the lack of sales has also stalled any renovation plans. The company had planned to paint the building in time for Christmas but this would have to wait until the New Year.

The government moved to court to collect the US$2M owed by Royal Investments Inc in June 2004. The holding company National Industrial and Commercial Investments Ltd (NICIL) filed the lawsuit after Royal allegedly failed to complete payment of the cost price of US$6M and the corresponding interest for a total of 70 million shares in Guyana Stores. According to the statement of claim, the two companies had, on October 4, 2000, entered into a written agreement which stipulated that the defendant would pay the plaintiff US$6M for the 70 million shares in GSL. It was further agreed, the document stated, that the defendant on or before September 30, 2002 would pay the balance, which has not been done. The action is defended.