@WoodySpoon -- apologies for the tag, HC reply not working .. ..
Considering I was replying to your dozen plus posts, espousing the virtues of retaining Fraser I thought I had done well to condense it .. .. ..
I do like a debate, because it gives one an opportunity to do some further research to confirm how the current Board of Directors have performed their roles, how the Company's demise has followed some horrendous decision making all done under the auspices of Messrs Fraser, Hepburn & Gordon.
Righteous? Call it whatever you like because it matters little, last week you were happy to have the LLL shares returned but because this week WoodySpoon would accept a sale of FFX at face value of LLL shares plus cash anyone disagreeing is "cutting of their noses to spite their face"?
Since this action started, there has been a groundswell of support with over 350 shareholders (and still increasing) that have indicated support by way of voting for resolutions proposed by the Requisitioning Members and/or donations to fund legal representations & other expenses attributed to delivering all the prescribed documents and sending out information to shareholders.
From all of these shareholders, and the Requisitioning Members I/nor we have received a single email that would support retaining any of the Board and even less would they support your preferred board member Fraser. In fact it has been very clear what they all want which cannot be repeated here,
.
So you can call it being righteous, or cutting of your nose or whatever else you can think of, but along with Franky1 we were the initial organisers of this action and what we, along with requisitioning members have set out to do remains unchanged.
We had already made concessions to the Company (versus their attempts to stifle) or more specifically to Lowe by allowing them to release their June 30 update before initiating the 249D action, and I'll be buggered if I am willing to lower my integrity and/or moral compass or alter core values to suggest a change in voting strategy that includes keeping either Fraser or any other of the Board members.
I don't think you truly understand that being "righteous" has more value than a few {expletive deleted} dollars, that attitude is further fuelled by large shareholders (or their minions) making contact and suggesting, (to which) if I had of taken heed I would be one exhausted (unpaid) gigolo
but nearly always reciting statements made by the board verbatim.
I found an old article dated back to December 2014; so bare with me as I will eventually go over more than a half a dozen sentences to keep you interested, but here goes; but I will condense it to the (my opinion) relevant points.....
Soliciting shareholder votes and relative low tech practices still has a role to play when companies need to win support from investors.
Increasing bold activist investors and the 5% rule for calling a General Meeting mean more companies will find themselves facing a sudden death playoff for the future of the jobs of those that run them.
When a company's board needs to win support for a capital raising, fend off a takeover attempt,
defend itself at a requisitioned meeting or get approval for its remuneration report at the AGM, it can prosecute its case a number of ways;
~ It will meet directly with its largest shareholders
~ It will try to get the support from the professional proxy advisers who are influential in recommending how super funds and others vote and push its case through the media.
All these strategies are important, but (
this is where it becomes more relevant) sometimes the vote comes down to a few percentage points either way and will be decided by a handful of retail shareholders.
Many small shareholders, enough to make a difference to the final result, are disengaged and won't read an email or open a letter.
~ it is these shareholders that have supported the action and engaged more than any of the larger shareholders trying to throw their weight around.
In votes like this, particularly where the issue they are voting on is complex or
highly contested, there is no substitute for talking to shareholders directly, on the phone, which is why solicitation is still an important tool, but what the
article has overlooked is that talking to shareholders should be the norm and not when they think their positions are threatened!
cheers
