RE:RE:RE:AZX @ watch ZoneNextPhase,
I have not checked the rule book with respect to the 5% and the 2 month limit. But there was a similar case involving of a dissident group led by Columbus Gold (CGT) that wanted to unseat another CEO and founder of Eastmain Resources (ER).
CGT bought a 2% stake in ER and proposed a new slate of director and CEO. It made a lot of noises and the founder and CEO (one of those long-serving founders who want to stay at the control forever) was fighting tooth and nail, but the incombent BoD went along with CGT and the founder and CEO took a golden parachute and head for the exit. The Special Shareholder Meeting was cancelled, since CGB withdrew the Petition.
We may expect a similar resolution here: EO withdrawing the "Notice", taking the package (he's got the parachute strapped on along with Vorvis and the CFO?) and exit the company gracefully. He may be retained for a period to transfer his knowedge to a new exec team.
Hopefully, we will see the recommendations from the Special Committee.
GH
------------------------
NextPhase wrote: If the Special Committee is planning to meet next week with the BoD, then this is not a great look for EO. However, I would also prefer our directors avoid using language like "self-serving", "puzzled", and "so-called" in their news releases, but it's a little late for that now. :-)
If I understand the original request by EO correctly, (Please correct me, if I am wrong on this) the "Intention to Requisition Shareholder Meeting" can't be stopped if 5% of the shareholders call for it, and the meeting must be held within 2 months after it's called. I'm not sure how the board can stop this, but the current board should be able to conduct any business before holding the shareholder meeting. I prefer to vote on whatever is being recommended by the Special Committee (if it's something that we should be voting on) before voting on potentially changing the board of directors.
I hate speculating, but it appears Eric is trying to block the Special Committee from discussing some proposal next week. From the original press release this morning, it seemed to insinuate the opposite, where the Special Committee needed to dissolve because it was dragging its feet without a clear deadline to move forward.
It's especially difficult to form too strong of an opinion until the resource update is released, and we have a better understanding what this disagreement is about.
NP