Ann: Results of Meeting, page-8

First 8 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
inthemoney114

980 Posts.

2

24/06/18

14:56

Post #: 33911901
Share

Originally posted by the bottom line ↑

Wow!! Yep that is one way (a massively biased way) of looking at it.

However, if you want to deal in facts and not fantasy - there is another way.

If you look at the position from a factual base, the voting numbers at the recent Shareholder’s Meeting tell a different story.

The Directors and one “Insider” (Doug Barry) have more than 41 million shares between them - (and that does not include Performance Shares they hold)

The total numbers voting in the affirmative at the recent Shareholder’s Meeting was circa 20 million – that is: around 50% of the collective votes of the Directors and Doug Barry.

Simple logic tells you that the Directors and Doug Barry, did not bother to vote all of their shares as “yes” votes, or one of those parties (at several), did not cast a vote, at all.

It also indicates that not one other shareholder bothered to vote (unless the Directors and Insiders voting was even less than the outlined 50% of their collective holdings) – the mathematics simply don’t lie. It reflects the same abysmal lack of support as was evidenced in the zero take-up of the recent Entitlement Issue – again, the numbers don’t lie.

With just 20 million “yes” votes, cast in the General Meeting, MSM was extremely vulnerable to having all Resolutions lost at that Meeting and watching as everything came crashing down. Why would the Directors have risked that and put the Company in such jeopardy?

The lack of interest and intensity and the clear apathy from Directors, Insiders and now shareholders is as telling as it is obvious.

The below are nor opinions - they are cold, hard, brutal statements of facts –
> Less than 4% of total shareholding numbers voted “yes”.
> The Directors and Insiders vote about half of their combined holding.
> No other shareholder bothered to vote.
> Not one shareholder (apart from the Directors and Insiders) subscribed for the Entitlement issue.
> The Directors and Insiders took up a small % of their entitlements.
> The “eligible shareholders” (presumably the Directors and Insiders – or some of those) who committed to take up $270k in the Entitlement, welshed and had to “settle” with the Company on 50% of that “commitment”

Not a pretty picture or one that gives any confidence. It is now up to Riva and the other un-named “committed” underwriters and placement subscribers.

If comments are purely opinions and not fact based – can we, at least, have some sensible reasoned knowledge behind those opinions rather than just outlining a massively hyped up or wild interpretation of the actual position.

Expand

Directors cant vote on resolutions due to conflict of interest

MSM Price at posting: 1.8¢ Sentiment: Sell Disclosure: Not Held
4 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

MKT

The ASX can overlook its Telecomm small-caps. Here’s one diversified brand with an international footprint

Trump Victory Sends Bitcoin Surging Above $75K – Is $100K Next?

UBI

Universal Biosensors flat despite fresh deal with US medical product distributor

HotCopper Highlights: Your most watched and most discussed stocks this week

Trump is President Again: What Does This Mean for Crypto?

MMI

Metro Mining inks bauxite offtake contracts into 2026 with Chinese m

FG1

Flynn Gold reaches milestone exploration target for Golden Ridge

Week 45 Wrap: Combat sports usher in Trump 2.0 – or is it male insecurity?; RBA boring; Propane suggests China alive

Palladium's the newest geopolitical hot commodity. But ASX exposure is limited

IMU

Imugene kicks off Australian trial for blood cancer treatment