We’ve received a long legal letter from RHG’s lawyers this morning outlining the ‘deficiencies’ in our requisition. The company did, however, offer an olive branch by agreeing to put the same resolutions to the annual meeting in November.
We have until 5pm Monday to agree or otherwise, and don’t want to say too much until we’ve explored our options. I’ll provide an update on Monday night or Tuesday morning.
Print This Post
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Good on you Steve and Greg. We have 90000 RHG shares and I am confident you have my and all share holders best interest in mind unlike David Coe.
I appreciate you will have a busy weekend.
All the best, Grant
[Reply]
One interesting point about their proposed “compromise” is the omission of the resolution to remove David Coe. Looks like you have touched a sensitive nerve.
[Reply]
Jase Reply:
September 18th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Is it possible that this could be an attempt to save face? (ie, perhaps a resignation is likely)
[Reply]
Brendan Reply:
September 18th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Well spotted Geoffrey, when I first read the announcement I wrongly assumed that all three resolutions would be put to the AGM.
I would find the comment about the time and expense for holding a special meeting funny if it were not for the fact that the directors of RHG are currently getting paid an excessive amount for doing nothing.
[Reply]
Murray Reply:
September 18th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Of course Steve Johnson and Greg Hoffman wouldn’t be at all interested in said fees, they’ll be doing it for free
[Reply]
Rowan Willson Reply:
September 18th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I would happily pay them double what the current board gets if they do something to return my capital. All their legal fees and extra work time are not for charity, and it’s not like they are running a soup kitchen for poor people! They are running a business, and if they are willing to align their interests with mine then I don’t see why they should do it for free (it goes way above and beyond what I would expect from my annual subscription fee).
I found their response to be a bit two sided. If you truly see yourself as representing shareholders than even if the notice is deficient you can still overlook that and call a meeting. The cost of meeting issue is bs as it probably cost us the shareholder that in getting a team of legal eagles to find all these so called deficiencies. Even if there are no deficiencies than they have just raised the bar as you have to go to court to enforce your rights. I would call to vote off 2 of their directors and appoint the nominated two at the agm.
Really I don’t see much of the olive branch just an attempt to frustrate and delay. I will from now on vote against the appointment of all 4 incumbent directors. Will I sell my equity only after this has played out I suspect these guys see our money as theirs forever. I wont hand around if thats the case.
[Reply]
I applaude II’s efforts but the big picture is to get RHG to think of the maximum payout for shareholders
whatever can achieve that has my vote
[Reply]
Why not have a compromise whereby the SGM is held immediately after or immediately before the AGM. I’m sure that this is done fairly frequently and avoids the cost of a second meeting. Obviously you should aim to have all three motions on the agenda of one meeting or the other.
[Reply]
All is quiet on the battleground… I’m wondering if there are discussions behind closed doors…
[Reply]
joe w Reply:
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Hopefully, as I would like to see an outcome.
[Reply]