DOLLAR LAND

Next month the annual general meeting of Dollar Land Company will be held. At this unusual gathering the accounts for two years, 1970 and 1971, will be presented.

The chairman of the company, John Tyzack, industrial consultant, took over two years ago when the company had no directors at all.

Now he has a couple of partners, plus a battalion of angry shareholders who are confused about the mysterious crash in the once glamour company's fortunes.

One newspaper columnist recently described Dollar Land as one of the longest running melodramas in Britain outside 'Coronation Street'.

The parallel, however appropriate, disguises the intense wrangling that has gone on behind the scenes in business story which glaringly reveals the way both the police and the Board of Trade (now Department of Trade and Industry) are prepared to let unseemly business behaviour run riot.

Only in the past week has a glimpse of the company's workings been provided by the Ombudsman, the so-called parliamentary watchdog.

In his report he criticizes the departmental authorities for not investigating the company's affairs.

Despite persistent requests, successive government ministers, both Tory and Labour, refused to launch an official to everyone in the City of Lon don that all was not well inside the embattled company. Even after the Stock Exchange suspended quotatior of the shares in 1969, the President of the Board of Trade, Roy Mason, refused to budge.

It has now been revealed that even the Ombudsman's report was delayed in publication. It was completed in July, but not published until September 11. The delay has not been explained.

One explanation for its hurried appearance in print might be the revelations made in the House of Commons on August 3 by West Ham North's Lab. our Arthur Lewis. He alleged the House that crooked companies had fleeced shareholders of millions pounds. And he named the most glaring ones'—including Dollar Land.

He described it as 'the most notorious'. 'The shareholders were sent entirely false prospectuses and wrong informaof America, which also crashed spectacularly some years later. (Mr Lewis also named REFA in the House last month as one of his 13 'notorious' companies.)

The company first came to the notice of the authorities in 1960 just over one year after was floated. A bid was made at a meeting instigated by Edward de Courcy publisher and company director, to oust the chairman and board of directors.

Their rowdy attack on the board was well received. After all, the company's initial performance was less than satis. factory. Offered in January 1959 at 28s a share, the price slumped to 17s 18 months later. This meant a drop in total share value of more than £im, a disastrous start for the infant property company.

At the shareholders meeting at Caxton Hall one subscriber said that the profits forecast in the prospectus was 'near criminal' The men whose heads were on the block were the chairman, Mr John French, of London and Yorkshire Trust, which floated the company at 28s a share, and directors the Earl of Mansfield, Sir Ernest Lever, Mr Francis Blake, Mr Clarence Hampton and Mr Paul Boggis-Rolfe.

In circular to sharecompany had Courcy stagnated": holders de said the There was £400,000 of surplus funds still dormant while unimproved property remained unused. This, he maintained, was in striking contrast to the 'brilliant moves' of then Mr Charles, Opportunities to buy now Sir Charles property had been mishandled However, de • Courcy's attempt to unseat the board and have himself and three associates installed in their jobs was defeated. But the board did agree to call in outside accountants to conduct an independent inquiry into the group's affairs.

Those who follow these matters will recall that de Courcy went on in his business career and a few years ago was jailed on corruption charges.

Then followed a series of boardroom putsches in which he directors kept coming an going like Jumbos at Heath row.

One of the first 'saviours' on the scene was Mr Joseph Tankoos. a Canadian property man. After pouring a modest amount of capital into the group he issued statement to shareholders astonishing for its frankness:

'But we are not putting Dollar Land into the hockshop business. If anyone thinks the rates are risky today shouldn't be here to put £200,000 into your company. That's the way I trade. the acquisition of such talent: 'Mr Tankoos and Mr Yarmon expect to make a great deal of money out of their options. If they make money, so will the rest of the shareholders.' But by 1967 City accountants, Peat, Marwick and property experts, Edward Erdman, had to be called in to investigate the group's affairs.

Following the detailed report, Tankoos and Yarmon resigned. After criticizing the purchase of a number of pieces of US real estate, the report declared: 'It does not seem to us appropriate to reappoint Mr Tankoos and Mr Yarmon as general managers.' At the next annual meeting in 1969 it became clear why the report was so swift in dealing with the North Americans. Shareholders were told error, there was a substantial in the consolidated balance sheet of the troubletorn group: Net assets attributed to Dollar Land for the year to December 31, 1967, had been overstated by more than flm.

Assets were only worth £2.Im and not £3.2m as stated in the balance sheet. glamour proposition, was regarded as one of the most controversial outfits ever to set up in the property business. It had been plagued with legal actions—one long-running case in the US cost those concerned about $6,000 a day.

By early 1970, after six years of Labour rule, pressure mounted for an official inquiry.

On February 18, 1970, Arthur Lewis asked Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody, parliamentary secretary to the Board of Trade, if she would make an official inquiry in the company's operations. The board was 'considering it', she replied.

On February 22 the Tory 'Sunday Telegraph' reported: 'There is bad news this week for the long-suffering shareholders in Dollar Land. After looking at the evidence and taking legal advice, the Board of Trade has decided not to appoint an inspector to look into the company's affairs. An inquiry is clearly necessary as we have argued strenuously in these columns for many weeks?

When the then President of the Board of Trade, Mr Roy Mason, an NUM-sponsored MP, rejected an official inquiry, he was not merely reported to the Board of Trade for years that Dollar Land Holdings never issued company reports and completely avoided the Companies Act. Why does the Minister not take action with regard to the scandal of Dollar Land Holdings?' She replied: 'Mr Lewis has discussed this case with me and with various shareholders of the company. Board of Trade powers to take action are clearly defined and when we have evidence we will take action.' Pressure continued until, on June 7, ten "days before the General Election, the Ombudsman announced he was making an investigation.

By this stage the share quotation had been suspended for more than ayear, no dividend had been paid since 1965 and the last accounts covered only up to 1968. Even these accounts were difficult to fathom; the auditor's report was heavily qualified because they had been unable to get information 'which would have enabled them to form an opinion' of the accounts.

In his report published last week the Ombudsman states: 'Although I recognize that they