SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : CCB vs ZEN truth board
ZEN.V 1.170-0.8%Nov 7 9:30 AM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: Zengold4/23/2018 5:04:04 PM
of 12350
 
This says it all. thanks reflection

To: NLWest who wrote (16021)4/23/2018 4:26:57 PM
From: Reflection5 Recommendations of 16039
From: NLWest4/23/2018 9:30:32 AMRead Replies (1) of 16035

"A fair question to ask is, "Would shareholders consider the proposed replacement BOD candidates as suitable if they were being proposed at a regular AGM?"

NL, at the last AGM there was a (proposal) motion from the floor to ask that nothing be discussed or voted upon regarding Directors future options/compensation, until the shareholders in attendance have a chance to ask questions of the CEO and BOD members in attendance. I heard the motion and I was sitting near the back of the room. The shareholder asking the question was sitting no more than 10 feet from Mr. Eveleigh. Mr. Eveleigh continued on like he did not hear the motion. That question and the refusal of Mr. Eveleigh to permit the motion is when Mr. Eveleigh stabbed himself in the back. At that point he lost the meeting. At that point it became obvious to all in attendance that Mr. Eveleigh saw himself as more important than the shareholders. Mr. Eveleigh is the author of his own misfortune. The shareholders were so angry at Mr. Eveleigh's attitude and arrogance that when Mr. Eveleigh did present a motion for Directors future options/compensation we voted against the motion. It took over an hour for the votes to be counted and the shareholders lost the vote.

At the end of the meeting a group of us approached Mr. Sean Whiteford and gave him a list of our concerns. Mr. Whiteford told the group he would get back to them. Mr. Whiteford never did get back to the group. In other words he brushed them off. The group then sent a letter to Mr. Eveleigh with their concerns. there were 72 signatures from shareholders in that letter. Mr. Eveleigh brushed them off. The three individuals representing the CG group that are seeking BOD positions might not have 100 years of mining experience. They might not be geologists. But, they do have solid and successful business experience and are shareholders. And most importantly, they are not arrogant.

This time the shareholders will not lose the vote. This time the shareholders are extremely well organized. This time the shareholders are using their own personal money and considerable time to fund their campaign. On the other hand Mr. Eveleigh and his BOD are using shareholders money to fund their campaign to keep their jobs and positions. This proxy vote is going to be much different than the vote at the AGM. This time shareholders will win.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News