Sherritt International Corp T.S

Resolution # 5 on Share consolation. To vote against it

[YGAli51]

Monday, December 7, 2020
 
Open letter to Board of Directors of Sherritt and to its Shareholders
 
 
Dear Board of Directors
Sherritt International Corporation
Canada
 
Subject:           Response to Voting on a Resolution to approve a proposed share consolidation
                                                            Resolution # 5
 
 
I am writing to you to strongly reject the above resolution which is being tabled at the Annual General meeting being held on December 15, 2020 and am asking you to withdraw the Resolution from being tabled. 
 
Just tabling this Resolution tantamounts to betrayal of your fiduciary duty to the shareholders to protect their interest specially their financial interest. It also shows that you are only interested in protecting your own interest, your name and your reputation. 
Let me elaborate.
 
Firstly, let me tell you that there is a very minuscule chance that post consolidation, the share price will rise to significantly benefit the current shareholders. You have ample examples of companies doing that and hardly any one of those companies provided any positive return to the pre-consolidation shareholders. 
You know that and I am sure your consultants know that very well. So, I would say that this decision is unethical and lack any moral principles of responsibilities of your position. While the price of our basic commodity is going up and that the debt burden has been reduced significantly, let the share price at the current level of outstanding shares do their trick if you think you have finally made some good and strategically sound management decisions for the the company. Having 291 million shares for a company like Sherritt is not an unmanageable number of shares. So, do the right thing and drop the Resolution.
 
Secondly, the share consolidation only protects your reputation that you are not on the board of the penny stock company. So, it makes you feel good, important and marketable for other board positions in other company. If that is truly your motivation, then I ask you to not seek re-election. Again, do the right thing for the current shareholders and withdraw the Resolution.
I personally have been a continuous shareholder of this company since the 1990s and regret to say I have never seen the top management so incompetent and careless with spending the company’s money including the money you received from floating shares just last year. 
Couple of examples would prove your incompetence.
1.     Throwing good money after bad to the tune of $100 million in one oil hole while delaying accepting the evidence that this was a worthless proposition. How did the B of D allowed that to happen for over two years.
2.     Not locking in the cobalt price when the world market prices went through the ceiling. Again, what was the expectation of the management, that it will keep going up indefinitely. Again, the B of D allowed this incompetence of management to ruin a great opportunity to benefit the company and, therefore it shareholders.
 
So, ladies and gentlemen of the board, please pull this Resolution from the table and for once do the right thing.
 
Your truly
 
 
Yousuf Ali
Long time Shareholder

[IamMagic]

Well written, thank you from all of us. I think they should be aware that it is a big risk on the short term. The short term impact of consolidation can be: - decrease in stock price/fear of investors - Stagnation/low increase after consolidation. I agree that they should just prove they take good decisions first and keep the food news. Then, maybe later consider consolidate. I think it

[Contrarian333]

I will also vote against the share consolidation but wanted to comment on a few points in your letter.  Share consolidations need to be done with care and judgement and accompanied by positive news and price support.  I believe the shares can exit "penny stock" status without a consolidation.  Further - hedge funds don't care about the price, and the tradtional

[YourFriendo]

"Board members owe a fiduciary responsibility to the Corporation not to any particular group of stakeholders including shareholders" You've said a lot of stupid things Contrarian, but this is one of the stupidest. 

[Contrarian333]

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the duciary duty is owed at all times to the corporation. The Court has also stated that acting in the best interests of the corporation is not synonymous with acting in the best interests of shareholders: Confirming that you are indeed an idiot YourFriendo.  

[YourFriendo]

Okay Mr. Google law. Or maybe, Law Karen is a better name for you. Semantics aside, an amigious ruling by the Supreme Court stating the board has to act in the best interest of the corporation is not the same as saying the board doesn't have a fiduciary obligation toward the shareholders. It's saying they are not synonymous. Boards can't make decisions that hurt the corporation simply

[Contrarian333]

Ok Boomer - full explanation from Fasken's.   The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the duciary duty is owed at all times to the corporation. The Court has also stated that acting in the best interests of the corporation is not synonymous with acting in the best interests of shareholders: “The duciary duty of the directors to the corporation is a broad, contextual concept

[BackEndPugMill]

Been a holder for 15+ years, I’m open to consolidating and the risks Thee share pice has to be 1.50 before I would consider that. 

[StockPick50]

I agree that above $1.50 is right for consildation. I understand the drive to get out of penny land but YGA's letter summed it up perfectly. Unfortanely, I don't think this company cares too much about anyone outside of management. They screwed the bondholders and now they want to do the same to shareholders.

[Lottomax649]

Why is company even considering this? Pathetic is a lame duck CEO now that he is leaving the company (at long last). Let the new CEO make such decisions. 

[ariesleaf]

Stop this now Vote no.

[oceaneleven]

O/S shares are extremely high and scare investment...The amount of shares and what Sherritt NOW OWNS for assets  will hang over us  until something is done...If Sherritt were to pay cash out of existing revenues to add an asset without dilution, then the o/s share count would be okay.. The fact that the share count reflect the past is just that... A smaller share float, solid supply and