So the 90M or so extra outstanding share difference (warrants and such) from last year to this year in the hands of less motivated, less aware shareholders who didn’t vote may have tipped the scale to “no quorum”. That sound plausible?
More apathy required though as that max total would then be closer to 260M (120, 90, 47 if spitball estimating properly) “No” votes would count to quorum but maybe there were relatively few if you discount 13D.
One way now of neutralizing 13D corrosive impact now is getting powder wet.
Would a court allow a company to make case that unvoted shares in a second quorum attempt are de-facto proxied to BOD when passive actions, like not voting, express disproportionate power over intentional actions, like voting, and that the BOD have an obligation to act even when a shareholder base chooses inaction? I dunno, more spitballing.
More apathy required though as that max total would then be closer to 260M (120, 90, 47 if spitball estimating properly) “No” votes would count to quorum but maybe there were relatively few if you discount 13D.
One way now of neutralizing 13D corrosive impact now is getting powder wet.
Would a court allow a company to make case that unvoted shares in a second quorum attempt are de-facto proxied to BOD when passive actions, like not voting, express disproportionate power over intentional actions, like voting, and that the BOD have an obligation to act even when a shareholder base chooses inaction? I dunno, more spitballing.
