You make some very relevant points and observations.
Firstly wrt the Drake share sales. I also interpret same as you, that over the period of 16 months Drake sold 1.48 million shares - that works out to an average of just over 90,000 shares per month, but probably was dumped sporadically in larger parcels at opportune times. And of course they're entitled to do so.
Who knows if Drake has continued to sell since that date, and whether there was far greater selling between the two Drake accounts ("Private") and ("Special") over that period AND SINCE Aug 2019. We will never know that because of the paucity of transactional information in that particular announcement provided by Drake.
I find it hard to believe a hedge fund hasn't had any transactions since Aug 2019 - a three year period, whereas there was an average 90,000+ share sales in the previous 16 months period. Did sales really dry up, or simply has it not been registered in the announcement because it hasn't triggered another 1% drop in stakeholding since Aug 2019, and/or that sales have been between the two Drake accounts so that from an outside view it appears as though there are no transactions. We will only know the former (if another 1% drop in equity occurs) or if Roberto takes up a directorship and declares having a beneficial interest in Drake. To be honest I won't trust anyone until I see it in black and white!
I agree with your comment that appointing Roberto from Drake, and having McLarty agree to resign probably would placate Drake, but I can't see that happening before the AGM.
The irony is that ALL directors will be up for re-election notwithstanding Love's aim to sort out the best mix leading up to the AGM - McLarty is unlikely to be re-elected because of Drake's vote (and many irate HC posters who have been critical of his involvement), similarly Wright is due for re-election due to usual rotation process - and probably won't be re-elected similarly. The AGM is at most only 4.5 months away or possibly only 3.5 months away if scheduled based on Dec AGM (as was the case pre-covid). By the way the current board composed of 5 directors is quite unusual for a company of SMN'S small size, and it wouldn't comply with ESG principles, having an Executive Chairman, and no women.
Whilst many posters won't have seen or won't recall a post I made a couple of years ago, which relates to my observations wrt the sneaky Scheme of Arrangement between ASX minnow at the time Spookfish with American mega photo imagery group Eagleview as I related it to the FAA approval process. I remain very suspicious of allowing any opportunistic group holding a Substantial shareholding to take control of the board. In the case of Spookfish the directors for some inexplicable reason agreed to the Scheme of Arrangement (I have my view as to why) which enabled Eagleview to take over Spookfish at a paltry premium for long suffering shareholders to lose out on such fantastic Australian camera technology! I don't want that to happen with SMN, and so I'm concerned with Drake represented on the board.
By the way, if Drake was so dissatisfied with the board composition, why has it taken until now, AFTER FAA approval has occurred, for it now to destabilise the entire company? As I say, i don't like the possibility of Drake controlling the board and potentially opening up the company to some group interested to exploit the CVM!
Expand
(20min delay)