FD,I appreciate your perspective, but I have to strongly...

FD,
I appreciate your perspective, but I have to strongly disagree with the idea that delisting is simply a “logical next step” and that shareholders should accept this passively because “Ruffy is smart.” Intelligence doesn't justify sidelining minority shareholders or reducing transparency in a public company.Delisting is not just about “shaking out” sellers—it's a fundamental change in governance, oversight, and liquidity.

Ruffy may have advisors, but let’s not confuse strategic maneuvering with acting in the best interests of all shareholders. Pact’s share price has been heavily depressed for years. If a controlling shareholder wants to take the company private, the price should fairly reflect long-term value, not current market pessimism.

The argument that TIC “only has Ruffy to sell to” underscores the core problem: a delisted Pact creates a trap for minority holders. That’s precisely why this process should be scrutinized, especially in the context of the TIC legal action and whether it relates to coercive tactics to reach 90%.Also, your statement that “emotion should be removed from investing” goes both ways.

Investors opposing the delisting aren't being emotional—they're demanding fair treatment, proper valuation, and corporate accountability. That’s rational.If Ruffy wants to delist, he can make a full takeover offer at a fair premium. Otherwise, shareholders have every right—and arguably a duty—to oppose a move that risks locking them into a company with reduced rights, no liquidity, and no clear value path.