After a week of back and forth with RHG, we’re back (almost) where we started. The three resolutions we asked to be put to a special meeting of shareholders will now be heard at the annual meeting in November (you can download RHG’s ASX announcement here).
We’ve been keeping quiet the past week while we held discussions with CEO Glenn Goddard and a member of the existing board. We agreed prior to a meeting not to comment publicly about any of the discussions, but it’s now time to get back to convincing shareholders that we’re the right people for the job.
Over the coming weeks we’ll be posting a letter to all RHG shareholders and updating this site regularly between now and November 12. The response to date has been amazing, let’s make sure we keep the momentum rolling.
Print This Post
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Great work Steve, I notice that in RHG’s announcement, they have requested a statement from you and Greg outlining your experience and how you would handle conflict within the board. You may want to mention that, unlike some of the current directors, you have little knowledge of making doughnuts, launching disasterous IPO’s, and destroying shareholder value through questionable acquisitions, you do have a great deal of experience running a PROFITABLE business and would use such expertise to protect the interest of ALL shareholders. Once again, you have my vote.
[Reply]
One challenge will be if the share price reaches a point where we should consider selling prior to the meeting. Do we take the money and run or do we hold to achieve a point of principle?
[Reply]
mitch Reply:
September 24th, 2009 at 10:40 am
we hold definitly to make a point as there is a principle involved here.
[Reply]
Michael Reply:
September 24th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Understand the dilema here, however seeing as it has gone down so much compared to the original II reviews, I would be holding on. As I have recently purchased another small amount, I will definitely be holding on – and giving my vote to all recommendations – removal of a non share holding director seems a given! Appointing our nominations will be my vote, and I am sure that looking at shareholder value for II itself, holding these shares, would show interest in running a profitable company, especially with the background of II and it’s philosophy regarding share value. Regarding the conflict of interest, will look for the reply. It most definitely not conflict of interest holding shares in a company you run, so it is only if you know things are going bad and still recommend them – at least it will be honest recommendation whether the company is going good or bad. You got my vote.
[Reply]
From the announcement, it appears you have just demonstrated how you would handle conflict within the board. Sure, we didn’t get a meeting organised 1 month earlier but I suspect Steven and Greg wanted room to manuever during negotiations and they got it. Coe will stand for re-election at the next AGM, no doubt with sufficient time beforehand to sound out support or retire-ala-Ron Walker. Steven and Greg have to make a formal case for their directorship to all shareholders, which has to be done either way. So all in all, the stage is set for some action over at sleepy RHG. Well done!
That being said, the share price picked up fairly quickly after the initial requisition announcement. Perhaps this suggests people are hoping for positive change? Getting action is about amassing a sufficient stake. This is about patience and understanding. Good things rarely come easily nor straightforwardly.
[edited by The Intelligent Investor for compliance purposes]
[Reply]
Congratulations Gentlemen, a great result even if the votes don’t materialise on the day. Best of luck Travis
[Reply]
Good work to date. Let us hope the current board do not go on a spending (acquisitions) spree before the AGM. Given their lazy record on meetings and attendance at same perhaps the kitty will be safe!
[Reply]
Great work Greg and Steve so far. At least the existing board knows there are a number of shareholders wanting change. As mentioned before David Coe has little interest in the company and his creditentials are less than flattering. I mean he struggled to 2 meetings last year and was paid a hefty fee for his efforts, and has NO shares. I hope he wasn’t too stressed. He needs to be replaced. Personally, I would like to see the whole board replaced and I am not sure an extended board will acheive the outcome we are wanting.
Having said all that an extended board would give us small shareholders a voice; Greg and Steve WILL have the best interests of the company and shareholders uppermost at all times.
Is is possible to run a ticket?
[Reply]