I think the most concerning part I've seen for shareholders in a while are the final 2 lines of the Cannabiz article recently posted:
"little difference to THE COMPANY"
"no practical difference toUS"
Not shareholders. Not other stakeholders. "The Company" and "Us".
There is a substantial lack of consideration for anyone outside of the company and its remuneration table in my opinion (and others, as it appears).
There is a significant difference to shareholders due to the de-listing/removal - inability to trade/liquidate holdings and much less visibility of activity. If I take out an $8million loan and don't pay it back, there's little difference to me (aside from the nice spending spree that caused funds to diminish) - I'm not losing my own money. But there's a big difference to the lender. It's a rather one-sided outlook.
Different here of course as it is spec investing (equity) & not loaning (debt) - sure - but you can't throw fiduciary duty out the window as it's still a company.
I am personally quite surprised that, for a company who allegedly has to undergo re-compliance yet again, there has been no shareholder vote to approve the prospective plans and/or acquisition in the first place.
There was no AGM last year either though. Some may recall the 'revolt' (per a news article) shown by 32% of shareholders voting against the remuneration approval vote at the 2022 AGM. If there was more than 25% against again in 2023 that would have triggered a board spill/review as far as I could tell from the articles around. Strategic avoidance?
