Pirc To Shareholders: Oppose Re-Election of BT Boss Gavin Patterson


    Pirc, an influential shareholder group in the City, has informed its investors not to re-elect Gavin Patterson, the chief executive of the company, at the annual meeting of the company that is scheduled next week.

    Last month, Patterson announced his resignation after Jan du Plessis, the chairman of the company, said that it was already time for a change in leadership at the firm.

    Jan du Plessis, stated: “The board is fully supportive of the strategy recently set out by Gavin and his team. The broader reaction to our recent results announcement has though demonstrated to Gavin and me that there is a need for a change of leadership to deliver this strategy.”

    The remarks of the chairman comes after the chief executive of BT has been in the spotlight, with some reports that the chairman of the company was holding a series of meetings with some investors ahead of its annual general meeting regarding his dissatisfaction with Patterson.

    The shareholders have not been happy at the dropping of the trading to a five-year low, urging Patterson to announce a £1.5bn cost-saving plan which included the loss of 13,000 jobs.

    After the telecoms giant revealed its plans to cut 13,000 jobs and quit its headquarters in London, the share price of BT dropped by almost 10 percent as the company attempts to cut costs.

    In a note, Pirc informed its investors to oppose a motion to re-elect Patterson at the meeting that is scheduled on Wednesday, the 11th of July.

    Pirc stated: “There are concerns over his leadership of the company, as he has presided over significant losses during his tenure, particularly during the year under review.”

    The advisory group also took issue with the annual bonus of Patterson that amounted to £1.3 million.

    Pirc added: “It is considered inappropriate that the benefits while the rest of the company is hindered by the losses incurred during the year under review.”

    It continued: “His willingness to accept such unmerited remuneration arrangements does not reflect good leadership.”