Voting on Investorvote.comI voted at investorvote.com and I had some concerns with the process.
- On the Voting selection page, I get two options for voting
- Click a button to cast my vote in accordance with the recommendations of Fission Uranium Corp Management.
- Click one of two buttons: For or Against.
I do not think that it is appropriate to have that preliminary button to vote in accordance with Fission Uranium Management Corp. In effect, it encourages people to vote with management without thinking about what management supports. Nowhere is it explained whether management is voting “For” or “Against”. Of course, I know that management is voting “For”, but do all shareholders? By providing this preliminary “Vote with Management” button, it is like increasing the changes of a “For” vote. Why can’t the process just require the shareholder to vote “For” or “Against”? The voting process should not favour any shareholder or party and there should not be two ways to vote "For". Why should management be allowed to influence how shareholders vote?
- I am asked to vote for the Arrangement Resolution which is stated as follows:
1. Arrangement Resolution To consider, and if thought fit, pass, with or without amendment, a special resolution, the full text of which is set forth in Appendix “A” to Fission Uranium Corp.’s management information circular mailed to shareholders of Fission Uranium Corp. in connection with the special meeting of shareholders to be held on October 14, 2015 (the “Circular”), to approve a plan of arrangement (the “Arrangement”) under Section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Arrangement being set forth in the Plan of Arrangement attached as Appendix “B” to the Circular, all as more particularly described in the Circular.
Now, why couldn’t this simply be titled “Arrangement Resolution re Fission Uranium and Dennison Mines”? Also, why is there no link to Appendix A which is only one page long? It is as though they do not want to remind people that Dennison is involved. Who designs and sanctions these things?
3. If possible, I will attend the meeting on Oct 14. My experience is that if I indicate myself as Appointee for representation at the meeting, they will set my vote aside and wait for me to indicate my preference at the meeting. Just in case I cannot make the meeting, I prefer to vote beforehand. Therefore, I voted online and left Management Appointees with discretionary authority to vote as they see fit in respect of amendments or variations that may come up at the meeting. But if I am at the meeting, why would I want them to represent me! Why can I not vote online and reserve the right for myself (or some other person) to represent me at the meeting? Again, the process is biased in favour of management.