RE: RE: Look shareholders - Vote NO On the Look front:
Seems like a poorly thought out proposition and business model.
Hope UBS votes its shares of Look against it.
Bet Andrew Kim isn't too happy about this.
___
On the UBS front:
IMHO Justice Mesbur erred in granting McGoey the estimated 3M$ golden parachute payment.
1. McGoey was not removed as CEO. He was still CEO after the proxy battle and he was asked to continue on as such by the new board. Instead, he left by his own volition. He was not terminated for cause but left, which would not trigger the payment. This alone should negate his claim to the enhanced golden parachute.
2. In addition, since he left, there was no deficiency for him to correct, so he can't argue he wasn't given a chance to correct.
3. In addition, and if nothing else based on principle, the exercise of shareholder's democratic right to elect a new board should not trigger a financial penalty by the McGoey/Jolian-UBS contract. Not only on principle, but on the findings of dishonesty, self enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and disregard for shareholders, that provision of the contract should have been set aside.
4. and further, the McGoey-UBS golden parachute contract was not made public on Sedar. That contract was later replaced by the Jolian-UBS contract, which was made public on Sedar as an afterthought late in the game, just before the Special Meeting that ousted the old board. While both the McGoey-UBS and Jolian-UBS contract terms were substantially the same, the first contract was never made public, only the second one was, and not in time to make decisions on it. It should therefore have been found to be unenforceable.
I find it hard to believe how being so clear on the other findings, Justice Merbur got confused on this aspect. I certainly hope UBS appeals.