It is very interesting that in opposing the shareholder special resolution that the issue of privacy has been raised.
Blind Freddy should have saw that coming.
i know of several small shareholders who were contacted on their home numbers when cheap votes were being sought to get a directors’ loan vote over the line.
privacy did not seem to be a concern then.
Phone numbers aren't part of a section 169 Registry requirement. If the company has those and used those I'd suppose they either got them from the shareholders themselves in which case I see no privacy violations in using them. Would it be a bit unfair to use them to lobby for one side of an issue and to deny the other side - probably, but that's not a privacy issue.
that’s the value of this resolution.
Discussion of this resolution in public must carry a cost too. It looks like there is a bunch of shareholders in strong disagreement with management. That isn't a look that would encourage buying for new retail. The board will win given the high threshold,
75% (approval of those that vote in person or via proxy by attorney or in the case of corporate shareholders by corporate representative) for a special resolution to change the constitution.
Chairman intending to vote undirected proxies against the resolution and the board unanimously against and on the record now as being against (unsurprisingly). Yes, I think it is extremely safe to assume that this is now a dead resolution walking.
It would be completely possible in my view to amend the amendment to resolve the legitimate privacy concerns and legitimate risk concerns (and technically that door remains open (see "with or without amendment" page 3), (the sort of tribal commentary that derides those with legitimate privacy concerns, or talks about the email thing, pretty much amounts to own-goaling when you need to bring people with you as does slanging off at the board, in my opinion), but personally I don't think there is a snowflakes chance in hell of getting an issue as esoteric as this through the concentration spans of sufficient voters to get them to engage enough to understand enough and to then vote enough to reach the threshold.
but Accountability works.
Accountability is rarely welcomed by those who are being accused of wrongdoing at the same time. It looks like an invitation to wear a noose for a neck tie.
The Xenophon amendment might have been amended (Xenophon wanted that), this proposed amendment also might have been amended to accommodate legitimate objections and to produce a better situation than the status quo. But there is a ruthless economics in politics - people only have some much patience to listen to something that doesn't obviously interest them at present - and then mostly they vote on their misunderstandings and often against their own interests.
No way was CYP one of the companies on the ASX that most needed this. I'd have liked it to get up more for the example it would have set for other ASX companies (I'd forgotten 75% needed not just 50%). The board never signed on for that (setting examples) though. Any more than shareholders signed on to finance director loans.
I'll be pointing my attention elsewhere - this is effectively over.
CYP Price at posting:
$1.17 Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)