Big Technologies Confirms Former CEOs Hidden Offshore Links in £124 Million Flotation Scandal

Big Technologies has claimed that its allegations regarding former chief executive Sara Murray’s undisclosed connections to offshore companies have been ‘largely confirmed’ by an international financial services provider. The revelation came during the company’s annual meeting, where it was disclosed that these offshore entities owned 38% of Big before its 2021 flotation, resulting in £124 million in proceeds.

The listed technology company, which specialises in electronic tagging services for police and probation services, sacked Murray in March and initiated legal proceedings. The company alleges she provided false information concerning her links to a ‘network of offshore and nominee companies’ used to ‘extract’ substantial sums from the business. The matter has drawn the attention of the Takeover Panel, a prominent City regulator.

Craig Shuttleworth, Big’s legal adviser, stated that FNB International Trustees had substantiated through legal correspondence that the companies ‘are and always were owned by’ a Murray family trust. The trust’s beneficiaries are alleged to be Murray and her daughter Rowena, despite previous court filings stating Murray ‘never controlled the companies, directly or indirectly’.

The annual meeting witnessed significant shareholder dissent, with several resolutions failing to pass. The remuneration report faced particular scrutiny, with over 50% of voters opposing it. The company moved to remove voting rights from the disputed companies, which retain 17% ownership, after Murray challenged the board’s competence last week.

The legal battle has escalated further, with Murray agreeing not to sell or transfer assets worth up to £320 million. The company also claims she used separate entities to ‘improperly divert or extract’ millions of pounds from the company and its Buddi brand operations.

The board faced criticism from both Murray’s supporters and critics during the meeting. Chairman Alexander Brennan defended the board’s actions, stating they were responding to a CEO who ‘lied repeatedly’. The ongoing dispute has raised concerns about litigation costs and corporate governance, with potential implications for future shareholder claims and regulatory investigations.