On Tue, 29 May 2012 17:13:34 -0500, (Mark Brader) wrote:

Charles Ellson:
If it was stock not shares then there was no share ownership.

Your dialect differs from mine, then. As to the LPTB, I have
no more to add.

The interpretation of "stock" seems to be a bit woolly and
internationally variable; I was taking it as investments issued which
were backed by LPTB's assets but which involved no rights of
ownership. It seems unusual that the LPTB would have involved any
share capital and that what the predecessors were actually issued with
were investments backed by the LPTB's assets as implied in :-
http://archive.tribunemagazine.co.uk...llion-pounds-a
including :-
"The amount to be paid on the C stock is now 51 per cent. per year. If
this rate of interest is not paid to the C stock holders in each of
any three consecutive years after June 30, 1935, the holders may
appoint a receiver."
Phew! (or has someone missed a decimal point ?)