Thanks for the comment, for me the article doesn’t show that explanation about EOTs and I didn’t really look into it. It certainly adds some caveats to the good news story!
The trustees have a fiduciary duty to act in the interests of the employees, but of course reality could differ. According to companies house, there are 5 officers of which 2 are the founders mentioned in the article. Apparently, EOTs are the most common form of employee ownership in the UK and encouraged by the government.
There is some risk of abuse it seems, it would definitely certainly be nicer if the employees directly owned the shares.
Thanks for the comment, for me the article doesn’t show that explanation about EOTs and I didn’t really look into it. It certainly adds some caveats to the good news story!
The trustees have a fiduciary duty to act in the interests of the employees, but of course reality could differ. According to companies house, there are 5 officers of which 2 are the founders mentioned in the article. Apparently, EOTs are the most common form of employee ownership in the UK and encouraged by the government.
There is some risk of abuse it seems, it would definitely certainly be nicer if the employees directly owned the shares.
wow thanks for that detailed explanation!!