Get ready for a smear campaign I was looking over a recent podcast report from Bernard Swanepoel, from the language in it it looks like we are in for a good old fashion mud fight...which may explain some the appereance of some of the new posters on here and their sudden support of the asset sale. Here are some excerpts from the podcast report (I posted the link at the bottom of the page)
- Reporter: Are shareholders likely to block that sale?
- Swanepoel: I would be surprised because obviously I think all the newspapers and journalists have been getting the same emails I’ve been getting from a small group who are lobbying to block it. But I think if one were to consider the consequences of that transaction falling over, I would be surprised if shareholders would vote against it and certainly as Village, to the extent that we are shareholders, we have been supportive of this transaction.
*** Now I am curious about how the shareholder group of Sprott, Olma and Stratton, who represent a total of 25% of the allowable MWS asset sale voting shares are a 'small group'. Given that a 50% threshold exists, a group who represents 25% of the allowable vote are anything but small in my books. The 'small group' who Swanepoel is referring to has 50% of the necessary shares to vote down the deal. As well if you include these shares Betsky refers to -
“I know of others [shareholders planning to vote against the deal] with well over 10-million shares,” he said.
In addition to this, smaller investors in Canada claiming to own six-million to ten-million shares are also threatening to say nay to the proposed MWS deal, Betsky commented.
https://www.miningweekly.com/article/angry-first-uranium-shareholders-seek-to-kill-two-birds-with-one-stone-2012-04-30
We are then brought up to closer to 75% of the necessary votes needed to vote down the asset sale, added to that the Sprott, Olma, Stratton shareholders are the only large shareholder group allowed to vote, which brings me to my next excerpt
Swanepoel: "I would be surprised if shareholders would vote against it and certainly as Village, to the extent that we are shareholders, we have been supportive of this transaction."
**** Village cannot vote in the MWS asset sale...so I fail to see why Swanepoel believes that it matters if Village supports the sale or not...he simply seems to be saying whatever he feels like...there's more but you guys can look it over if you want.
In my opinion, if Swanepoel was not worried about this asset sale being voted down he would not have tried spinning the situation, if it was as simply as Village either getting their money back now, or in April 2013 (which Swanepoel goes on to say in the article), then Swanepoel would have had no need to 'spin' the article. But calling the Sprott, Olma, Stratton group 'small' is clearly an effort to minimize the situation, as is presenting Village's share's as having an effect on the MWS asset sale - when the reality is that they are ineligible to vote...thoughts?
https://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page299360?oid=568496&sn=2009%20Detail