Mr. Goldstone could not buy without consulting Mr. Silverstone, and that caused some delay, but on April 1, 1930, the sale took place at 33s. 9d. per share, and the option to take the 1,800 shares at par was surrendered. It was alleged the price was too low, and figures. were produced based upon an average of the profits made in the first seven years. In many cases such an average might be a good way to arrive at a conclusion; here it was misleading.
A prospective purchaser who wishd to forecast the future would think the year preceding his purchase was the most important, and in that year there had been a loss of £3,870. Another argument was that with a majority "holding of shares a purchaser could force a distribution of undistributed profits to the extent of 140 per cent. of the issued capital. But a purchaser who bought in order to force the other shareholders to distribute the assets which were being used in the business was rarely met with. and from the practical point of view he would have to face many difficulties, One was the prospect of litigation, probably costly, with his fellow-shareholders. Another was that directors who thought a purchaser was likely to adopt such tactics would most likely refuse to register the trans-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.