Let's get real, unless you are a clinical narcissist, everyone values their privacy.
If I had a preference, I would prefer the names of 'potential' no voters to be kept private unless they are a top 20% holder, who's name is already required to be disclosed.
But if the company chooses to reveal all of the names in the scheme booklet, then so be it.
But there is no confusing it, this was Ian saying that there will be a 'name and shame' list included in the booklet.
The whole tone of Ian's release was denegrating of the potential no voters, so it doesn't take an english major to interperat how this was meant and it's intention.
Sabine may not have noticed, but starting this very thread acknowledges this fact, that the threat (okay, let's downgrade it to 'promise'), the promise to name in the scheme booklet, anyone declaring an intention to vote no to the current deal, might make holders who value their privacy above providing a clear message to the board of how they feel about this deal and how they intend to vote, may feel motivated to retract their previous letter, or for anyone intending, to hold back entirely.
Of course it is a threat, or intimidation tactics (call it what you will) when a company comes out and states "due to the way you feel about this deal, we are going to make your details public". Unless those names mean anything to anyone, simply stating the % of holders, or number of shares held, sufficiently communicates the same thing no?
So unless I see a law stating they must reveal the names, then it is at the company's discretion, and how this was so clearly spelled it out in THIS announcement in THIS manner, it is being used as a tool for discouragement.
That is not jumping at shadows or conspiracy theory, that is all of 12th grade English that is required to pick up what Ian is putting down.
A few things they don't seem to be betting on though.
A) I would guess most holders are adults, with substantial holdings (for their financial sitution) and are prepared to stand behind their conviction.
B) THEY may consider these letters to be shameful, but I doubt any shareholders are ashamed of exercising their right to have a say, so they may even find a few would wear their public naming with pride.
C) What they currently intend to be a small 'Name and Shame List' in their otherwise overwhelmingly positive merger scheme booklet, may end up being the 'Over 25% of holders List who currently have a blocking stake in this merger and have advised their intention to exercise it'
Doesn't have the same ring to it does it.
D) They might have been better served by considered it a courtesy that holders were making their intentions and feelings known ahead of time, but that latest announcement shows whatever miniscule courtesy they may felt receiving these letters, no courtesy will be extended back if you are in dissagreement with them.
That is a terrible message to put out ahead of any vote, on anything.
Hopefully at some point in this journey they remember who supported them from public listing through to RCF climbing aboard, and find at least some respect again for ALL holders before putting pen to paper on their next Announcement.
Expand
