Why not deal directly?, page-27

Sorry, I sold out most of my holdings..just enough to attend AGMs as with all positions. Yes, this is actually a reasonable structure.

Back to OP, on what planet would any of the following be considered executing their obligation to CTN shareholders to act in their best interests and fulfill the Company Objective? Lets explore:

1. Decide to effectively shut down the fund
2. Decide to do this without offering equal opportunity buy back for CTN shareholders
3. Let CGA sell the rights to manage the fund to NAOS and CGA receive a payment for that
4. Let NAOS change the name
5. Let NAOS change the investment strategy away from Microcaps
6. Let CGA put NAOS people on the CTN board
7. Not deal with NAOS direct if they decided they were the better manager
8. Permit their $200m investment portfolio to not have a manager from 20 October
9. Risk shareholders vote NO, meaning the company has no manager and rejected directors
10. Not show they have undertaken a full DD of the best available manager


It simply beggars belief. Imagine if, OC were awarded the mandate for that $30m. Imagine if OC then on sold that to say Mickey Mouse Funds Management and walked away from it, and them MMFM then changed the name, asset strategy, changed directors on CTN, took payment from MMFM. The thought is utterly preposterous! Who actually runs CTN and who's interests are the CTN directors representing?

Michael Pascoe, calling Michael Pascoe, we need you