Those that sold after February 6 can indeed still
Post# of 15624
(Total Views: 409)
Posted On: 03/03/2019 10:44:52 PM
Those that sold after February 6 can indeed still vote based on the number of shares they owned as of the record date.
Out of the 43 Million shares that sold after February 6, I suspect the majority of these shares were sold and bought by the same investors. Others have also been buying to average down.
Will they still be motivated to vote? You bet they will be! The few that may have walked away will probably not vote. This is good because according to the wording in the proxy statement a vote that is not cast is as good as a "No" vote!
Required Vote **
The affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding shares of Common Stock and Series A Preferred Stock entitled to vote is required for approval of the proposed amendment. Therefore, abstentions and broker non-votes will have the same effect as votes against this proposal.
Does anyone know why the above refers to a proposed amendment? Rather than "approval of the proposed amendment", should it not say something like: "Approval authorizing the Board of Directors to implement a reverse stock split"?
I'm a stickler when it comes to wording and to me, in this context, the word "amendment" doesn't make sense. Just want to make sure it doesn't give the lawyers the opportunity to interpret it in a way that suits their needs.
Out of the 43 Million shares that sold after February 6, I suspect the majority of these shares were sold and bought by the same investors. Others have also been buying to average down.
Will they still be motivated to vote? You bet they will be! The few that may have walked away will probably not vote. This is good because according to the wording in the proxy statement a vote that is not cast is as good as a "No" vote!
Required Vote **
The affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding shares of Common Stock and Series A Preferred Stock entitled to vote is required for approval of the proposed amendment. Therefore, abstentions and broker non-votes will have the same effect as votes against this proposal.
Does anyone know why the above refers to a proposed amendment? Rather than "approval of the proposed amendment", should it not say something like: "Approval authorizing the Board of Directors to implement a reverse stock split"?
I'm a stickler when it comes to wording and to me, in this context, the word "amendment" doesn't make sense. Just want to make sure it doesn't give the lawyers the opportunity to interpret it in a way that suits their needs.
(0)
(0)