RE:Shareholder ValueAOGEE wrote: In a number of her interviews and poscasts she state she was here to build shareholder value.
She is no idiot. She knew that Fire was a take over target with such a low shareprice and with all of the initiatives in the works. It was clear to everybody that the MJ industry was perfect for consolidation.
So my next question is to her and the BOD is , this environment was clear. Fire was a takeover target and you stated you were focus on shareholder value, why did you not put a poisin pill clause in place. It would have:
May have prevented or discourage hostile takeover attempts.
It would have allowed existing shareholders the right to purchase additional shares at a discount, effectively diluting the ownership interest of a new, hostile party.
So many questions I would love to ask the CEO and the BOD.
I sent a brief email this morning to them. F*&^ you guys Sell outs. What happened to repecting your shareholders?
Response: Thanks for your message. Please take note that Supreme shareholders can become shareholders of Canopy. As Canada's largest cannabis company with exposure to the US arguably the have the better opportunity to deliver shareholder value.
Talk about ignorance. If I wanted to be a Canopy shareholder I would be invested in weed:ct - I am not for a reason. This is a sellout move by these guys. Someone needs to explain the recent cash raises and shareholder dillution which screwed so many of us. At the time is was palatable with where this company was at, but now? Answers need to be provided. That added 40% minimum to our oustanding float... I can afford Broken Coast so moving forward I know what brand I will be primarily seeking out now...