RE:Roll the dice!Myrtles,
1. One of the items that seems to be important to you is that the BoD has very few shares compared to what EO and his FG have. But this is not necessarily a good indicator, considering the following.
- If all current directors have no skin in the game then there is a point. However, the 5 directors (excluding EO) have about the same number of shares compared to EO personal holding (~1.4M, or 0.3% OS, versus 1.7M, noting that Gundy has 0.3M opts not converted.)
- EO plus his family memeber have about 8.3M shares (1.7% OS). But, we need to compare orange with orange, noting also that usually the holding of a non-dissent director CEO and director would be counted as part of the BoD's holding. But in this case the CEO was fired with cause, but he remains as a a director (since he was duly elected by shareholder in the last AGM, hence the current BoD cannot fire him).
- So, if we want to compare orange with orange then, Peter Gundy is the lead person of the current BoD, with the support of ES and Sprott Inc. (10.23% OS, this group would be deemed as an insider as their combined holding is over 10%). Hence we should compare 0.3% + 10.23% = 10.53% OS with 1.7% that EO family has (or a max of 5% of the FG, as estimated elsewhere).
- Also, the modus operandi for the BoD and CEO is different. As a CEO, EO is responsible for the day-to-day running of AZX. He had 9 years of exploration without making much progress. The last RE for Orenda was in 2009, and all this was under EO's watch.
The BoD role is to set the general direction for the company, they are not supposed to go deep in the detailed nitty gritty activities. But major decision, such as financing that would cause significant dilution of the company share structure must be reported to the BoD, for approval. The CEO is not authorized to do this all by himself. This is where trouble started when the BoD created the Special Committee, and the rest is known by everyone.
- This is where we are currently at, a proxy fight between a dissident director and fire CEO and the current board. We have the facts and history in fron of us. It's not a perfect situation for either side. But you wuld need to pick the best side that can give you the beast chance to suceed. Not a status quo that would drag on for another 9 years.
2. Selling of non-core assets: If AZX can fetch a good sum of money selling them (e.g. the two good properties in Manitoba), as indicated in their plan, then that would be a good way to raise money without (significant) diluting the share structure.
Rightly or wrongly it's your pick. Do your own DD before casting your votes. Send me a PM with your voting results.Good luck.
GH
---------------------------------
Myrtlesman wrote: Wow! Who to believe? The truth probably lies somewhere in between the positions of AZX and Founders group. I have to say I'm leaning towards EO, and I'm compelled by the fact that the board has very few shares, that the BOD hasn't released the a significant fraction of the drilling results (if they were bad why not just say so and blame that on EO?), and that Sprott seems to be waiting in the wings to get a bargain basement deal. If EO wins there will be dilution and it will take several more years (and some good luck) to build the resource, but I'm thinking that the short term pain is more likely to produce a long term gain than just selling off assets and shareholders getting the short end of the stick. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so.