I posted the following message on Stockhouse in reply to an earlier post by Dunning, also below.
Dear Dunning,
I had foresight not foreknowledge.
I have been advised that Ontario company laws are heavily stacked in favour of the incumbent BOD. They are such that proxies made out to Dr Christopher Jennings may be legally challenged by the present BOD as having been solicited by him. Legally he cannot do so according to my advisers. By the way, the cost of the legal proceedings will be borne by the company NOT the individual directors themselves.
It is therefore very important that proxies are made out to someone, other than Dr Jennings, who will attend the meeting and vote these to withold approval of the BOD.
My view is that if the BOD is not unseated at the forthcoming AGM all dissident shareholders, as an oppressed minority, should refer the matter to the Ontario Security Commission quoting, among other things, Mr Banning's history re Pegasus. This may effectively halt for a period of time the deplorable move to Denver at a cost over œ1.1 million. In that period wiser heads may prevail.
By the way, I understand that Mr Banning was appointed by the BOD, not Dr Jennings.
Regards,
Crudestope.
The following is Dunning's original message.
Crudestope, what do you think about CJ's removal as Chairman.
Your words dated 5/22/00: "Please take note of the possibility that Dr Christopher Jennings will not be the chairman of the AGM. Any proxies in favour of the Chairman. (period) may therefore not reflect the shareholders' voting intentions."
Did you know something about the BOD's plans? |
