BEECHAM TRUST.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19177, 7 December 1927, Page 8

BEECHAM TRUST.

LIABILITIES, £1,098,850.

JAMES WHITE'S SPECULATIONS

(TBOH OTO OW* COIMarONTBKT.)

LONDON, October 19

A warning to the creditors of the Beecham Trust, Ltd., not to expect a dividend of more than a few pence in the £ was uttered by. Mr H. E. Burgess, senior Official Receiver, who presided at a meeting of creditors and shareholders of the trust. Mr Burgess said the winding-up order was made as a consequence of tne death of Mr James White, flie company was incorporated at tho beginning of 1917, and the nominal capital o £400,000 was divided into duu.uuu preference shares of £1 each, and 20,000 ordinary £5 shares. So long as dividends were regularly paid to the preference shareholders, they were not entitled to vote at general meetings, and that proviso became important because Mr White, the chief holder of the ordinary shares, was in a position to control the trust, dividends having bsen regularly paid on the preference shares. A Plan Which Failed. aThe balance-sheets showed a loss of £86,549 from the company's inception until June, 1919; a profit of £lo,lli during the ensuing six months; a loss of £269,432 in 1920; profits of £105,483, £13,591, and £439,310 m 1921, 1922, and 1923 respectively, and a loss of £275,903 in 1924. The operations between January Ist, 1925, and the date of the winding-up order resulted in a loss of £690,459, but after making adjustments the total deficiency came out at almost double that amount.

In April last, Mr White, on the company's behalf, began to acquire large numbers of preferred ordinary shares in British Controlled Oilfields (Limited). . Apparently his object was to acquire a controlling interest, create a shortage on the market, and then sell the company's holding at a handsome profit, but his plan was not successful.

Mr White had drawn extensively on the company's funds, and at the winding up his indebtedness to it was £458,853. He was the holder of 19,993 ordinary £5 shares in the company, 10g per share called., on which there was a liability of £89,968. Cause of Failure. The statement of the company's affairs showed available assets £134,467, but he (Mr Burgess) thought that every item was "based on some hope." Indeed, he understood from the special manager (Mr Russell Kettle) that the creditors should not depend on receiving a dividend of more than "some few pence in the £." Regarding the cause of failure, the manager said that it was in the first instance almost entirelv due to the big speculation in the shares of British Controlled Oilfields. The manager con. sidered that the trust had been financially embarrassed for some time, but, such was the reputation enjoyed by Mr White that he never experienced any difficulty in obtaining subscriptions for anvthing; he proposed. Mr Burgess said that the figures of the liabilities would require amendment. but the total was returned at £1.098.850.

Both meetings left the liquidation in the hands of the Official Receiver.