There are procedural safeguards in place under the Corps Laws that deter the company officers from engaging in illegal conduct such as "stuffing the ballot box", as your posts suggests. If, however, you are in possession of some evidence which might make you concerned, you can always lodge a formal complaint with the regulator (ASIC). But mere suspicion, I'm afraid, won't be enough. I really don't think there's any basis for making this suggestion, doss.
In any event, I'm of the view that the result of the proxy vote counting will be very close and, even if the resolutions are not voted down, management will get a real fright at how many "no" votes came in.
I sent this very short email to Glyn earlier in the week:
"Can I take it that these "hiccups" and procedural defects with shareholder AGM matters is due to you being more focused on company-making matters such as Pfizer and P&G? As a long term holder who has had faith in your performance to date, this is the conclusion I have drawn. Am I correct?"
And his reply was a lot longer, and addressed more, than I expected. Here are some of his essential points in reply:
- "I have no problems whatsoever with anybody voicing their concerns over the issuance of shares as we all know that becomes a very emotive issue. And I really do appreciate constructive comment which was why we did offer the market by way of a clarification the hurdles to cross...."
- "What no one has appreciated is that we always were looking at the achievement of advancements in licensing right through the exercise and no one has asked me whether it is better for the company to offer shares (in lieu of cash) as that gives us additional incentives but also we all know how difficult it is for Boards to sell shares so that in turn holds the Directors to the attention of the company and benefit to shareholders."
- "As you know I don't look at HC but from the emails I have received I fully understand many people's concerns. But we are building a company here over the longer haul and I would encourage everyone to look at the much bigger picture of what has been achieved over a small space of time and what the potential is. Nothing has changed here for the negative..."
- "Also, we had spoken to the major shareholders first about the whole issue of shares well before we did the Notice of Meeting as you would expect and they are supportive as they do see the bigger picture and want the team to remain committed for the benefit of all shareholders over the longer term."
- "And yes there are many things happening right now."
What I have gleaned from this is:
- The major shareholders, many of whom are 'institutional' and represented by Baker & Young, will probably vote "for" the resolutions. Let us assume that their combined shareholding is anywhere between 200m and 400m shares (max).
- The majority of hotcopper members who have voiced their concerns on this forum (as well as those who haven't, but have voted in smac's poll) have or are likely to vote "against" the resolutions (or, at least, the performance share resolutions). Let us assume that their combined shareholding is between 200m and 300m shares (max). Perhaps smac would be kind enough to generate a new poll so that we have a more updated indicator of how many people have voted against (or about to vote against) the resolutions? This may at least give us a more accurate measure of what we can expect to be announced in relation to the votes a week + 1 day from now, and that might allay concerns such as that expressed by doss.
- In light of the above, I suspect that the votes will probably get over the line for management, but it won't be an overwhelming swell of support as has been the feature of previous AGM resolutions.
- Lastly, although many of us (including myself) expressed extreme dissatisfaction in relation to irregularities associated with the resolutions proposed this year, let us not forget about how far the company has come. This has been pointed out by a few already, but with all the noise about the 10m performance shares resolutions, the company's historical progress to date is, right now at least, too quickly forgotten. 10m shares is a drop in the ocean. I will resolutely maintain my opposition to the performance share resolutions as a matter of principle, but these particular resolutions are not enough for me to dismiss altogether my overall faith in company management's competence and remarkable progress to date. If the resolutions pass, I will be annoyed but will move on in the expectation that the company is destined for astounding growth in the next year. And yes, I believe a company re-rating announcement is imminent, any day now. I suspect, ideally, the company will want this material announcement made before the anticipated 'fireworks' at the AGM, but they may not be in control of when they are permitted to make the announcement, in which case we'll just have to wait.
All in my humble opinion, of course.
J
(20min delay)