just out of curiousity I went back and had a look at a couple of...

just out of curiousity I went back and had a look at a couple of Schemes I was subjected to.

Two spring to mind, because in each, I was unhappy with the price offered, each had a major/controlling s/h, and each the Directors recommended the Scheme.

Independent Practitioners Network (IPN) 2008. taken over by Sonic.
OF the votes cast, 98% of shares were voted in favour, and 93% of Shareholders voted in favour. There were 294 shareholders who voted. The Scheme meeting was on 11 Sept 2008.
The Annual Report s/h list was dated 24 Sept 2008 (prior to tfr of Scheme shares) number of s/h was 1805 !
But I have to qualify that, because the t/o was at only 27c p/s, so there were 300s/h with unmarketable parcels, and almost 1,000 s/h with holdings of 10,000 or less - so a holding of 10,000 shares was only worth $2,700, so maybe they simply couldn't be bothered to vote?
Anyway, it illustrates some s/h apathy.

The other one was Lendlease Primelife (LLP) was taken over by Scheme 14 Dec 2009 by Lendlease.
3,013 s/h voted and 2,359 s/h voted in favour (78%).
As at 28 Aug 2009 there were 10,182 s/h, Of those 5,264 had s/h of 10,000 or less, so at 35c p/s thats again, only $3,500.
So on those figures, on 23% of shareholders bothered to vote. I do recall that a heck of a lot of s/h bailed out on-market prior to the Scheme meeting. The hedge type funds were buying on-market at a discount to the offer price.
So maybe apathy again perhaps?

I am trying to think of a company which recently had a t/o by way of Scheme voted down by smaller s/h.
when I research that I will post the info.

It will be a different share register by the time the votes are cast once these hedge funds/arbitragers vacuum-up the smaller share parcels.

But as you say, getting those smaller s/h who remain, to vote at the meeting, will be a big ask.

regards