Debenhams Shareholders Learning That Sharholders DO NOT "Own The Company"

Not sure I would agree with that Angoose.

The Directors appointed by the shareholders would have signed over the assets of the shareholders to the banks as security for loans that have kept Debenhams solvent.

The present management along with the creditors ie banks have decided to put the company into administration rather than accept Mr Ashley's offer of £200m cash injection. No wonder Mr Ashley is fuming - he's lost his original £150m investment - despite prepared to invest another £200m as long as he's installed the CEO; shareholders and stock creditors would be wiped-out.

The question is how will the banks get a return of more than £200m (cash) unless of course a deal has been negotiated with a 3rd party or parties prior to administration?

I think the banks are immoral to the core not allowing shareholders a vote to choose between administration and a rescue plan by Mr Ashley as CEO; the latter (at least) has a slimmer of hope of a (small) return from original investment for small (private) shareholders. The former is a complete shareholders wiped-out (including Mr Ashley's original £150m investment) with the banks the only benefactor of a minimum return of £200m, using Mr Ashley's £200m injection as a guide.

And, no wonder Mr Ashley's feels aggrieved and  pissed-off.

Absolutely can't help but smile that Ashley has lost 150 Million. I guess he is still an outsider and they won't let him in their club and why should we care!

The bottom line is that the shareholders employed the Directors but there does seem to be a bit of a smell. Will be interested to see how this was arranged and the legality plus the morality of it. The Directors are supposed to represent the best interest's of the shareholders not the Banks or employees. How did the banks get control?

Those who loan money to a business are always in control, try breaching your covenants and you'll find that out very quickly.
It's how venture capital / private equity groups wrestle control away from the founding members of a business.

English shareholders are definitely not owners.

The Court of Appeal declared in 1948 that “shareholders are not, in the eyes of the law, part owners of the company”.
In 2003, the House of Lords reaffirmed that ruling, in un­equivocal terms.

Ownership is not a simple concept. The classic account of its meaning was given 50 years ago by another legal scholar, Tony Honoré.

Ownership, like friendship, has many characteristics and if a relationship has enough of them we can describe it as ownership.

If I own an object I can use it, or not use it, sell it, rent it, give it to others, throw it away and appeal to the police if a thief misappropriates it.

And I must accept responsibility for its misuse and admit the right of my creditors to take a lien on it.
But shares give their holders no right of possession and no right of use.

If shareholders go to the company premises, they will more likely than not be turned away.

They have no more right than other customers to the services of the business they “own”.

The company’s actions are not their responsibility, and corporate assets cannot be used to satisfy their debts.

Shareholders do not have the right to manage the company in which they hold an interest, and even their right to appoint the people who do is largely theoretical.

They are entitled only to such part of the income as the directors declare as dividends, and have no right to the proceeds of the sale of corporate assets — except in the event of the liquidation of the entire company, in which case they will get what is left; not much, as a rule.

(John Kay November 10, 2015, Financial Times)

Ashley lost 150M£

Result !

It is a wildly believed myth that shareholders own the company that they hold shares in. They don't.

Instead, they own share certificates.
These certificates give certain economic rights to the holders, but most definitely do not include ownership of the legal entity or rights to its assets.

thank you angoose, we all know now, perhaps Ashley should have known, a tough world

He Donnay get them all right

Stores in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, Stirling and Perth were about right with online sales on the up. Then over the next 8 or so years they opened in questionable locations..livingston, ayr, leith, dunfermline, east kilbride, inverness etc. With the exception of Silverburn..these new stores were quite obviously mistakes..

Does not refusing Ashley offer result in putting people
out of work that may still have jobs under Ashley-i ask as don't know

Wow, that could be construed as a conflict of interest not conducive to ordinary shareholders of Debenham; FTI negotiating a sale/selling the assets with value on behalf of banks without the knowledge and/or consent (put to a vote at an egm) of ordinary shareholders. And, FTI no doubt will earn commission based on revenue raised eg the more money raised, the more FTI will receive as commission.

It is so reminiscent during the period of the Banking Crisis where lenders of companies ie banks would send in their own "people" to forensic the business, charged exorbitant fees for the privilege, and then took control of the companies on the cheap soon after as recent court cases had revealed eg Hbos; I think Noel Edmonds is one of those still in negotiations for an agreed settlement.