OK, first up. If any shareholder isn't absolutely incandescent with anger about what "our" board is asking us to agree to isn't paying attention but whatever your position is, YES or NO, do not be complacent and expect other shareholders will vote the way you want. OBJ is your company, your money and are legally entitled have a say in how you want your company run. So keep informed of future developments,transmit any concerns to the board via email AND USE YOUR VOTE!
My opinion is that our board is asking us to sign off on us being right royally screwed.....by our own board. Accordingly,
This deal stinks.
The deal timing stinks.
The Palermo fee stinks even more and the board even allowing it to be considered stinks and then it sucks and stinks some more.
The renegotiated P&G terms being announced whilst under suspension stinks.
The other announcements timing that have been released whilst in suspension stink.
If all this isn't enough to vote no then surely the contempt that existing shareholders are held was clearly evident at the AGM by the board by not having the answers to even basic questions about the deal is.
Our board stinks.
This is a first instance try on to fleece shareholders, there is no other description. If these "people" get a yes vote then we are signing off for these "people" to legally leech us.
A no vote will not end the company, the company will not go broke and if the deal with Mr Pavlovitch is that good then they'll all work their arses off to come up with more equitable terms towards share holders to get it over the line. If the board or Mr Pavlovitch start squealing and using second hand car selling tactics about one off deals, today only specials or this is our only chance, then I say let the lot of them walk....and those that don't walk can be shown the door. Jeff included.
A no vote or rejection of the initial proposal is a common occurrence and simply tells the board that the proposed deal as it stands does not satisfy shareholders. Our board can then either renegotiate the deal to one that satisfies OBJ shareholders, do another deal with another company or go back and come up with another plan - and then we will vote again. We may have to vote more than once but so what?
In any case, many boards and take over deals (this is essentially what is happening here) put in very low ball offers first up....And why wouldn't Mr Pavlovitch do the same? He wants maximum cash, so does his (new?) mate Mr Palermo and our board. Notwithstanding the vote outcome Mr Palermo should be shown the door.
Boards that try this stuff on rely on complacency and zero organisation between shareholders to get what they want. We as shareholders can absolutely make the above happen. This is the beauty of the internet and share forums - boards can no longer ride roughshod over shareholders and steamroll through a self serving agenda. All it takes is a little shareholder organisation.
So only two steps, 1. Vote. I strongly suggest No. 2. Once No gets up - and I hope it will, we can then formally request an EGM and inform the board that the agenda for this EGM is "as a large and cohesive shareholder group (there is no law against this) we have lost confidence in Mr Palermo." My guess is the triggering of the EGM will be enough to get the result.
(20min delay)