Member Info for addicknt

I seem to recall the number of votes cast have to be made available. And I certainly remember Solg doing so in the past.

Let's assume NM loses the vote to be re-elected and or, the other main resolutions.
Will the market a) see this as a precursor to an imminent bid and mark the shares up accordingly, or b) see this as a destabilising event which could be harmful and mark the shares down?

I believe nominee holders are obliged to provide the full details of all holders in the event that a company requests them.

Jerry, ha! I'm pretty sure I didn't mention Miagi.
Yes, I hope I don't. If I do, I'll blame you.

Q, you really are an utter tosspot. "Educate myself", ha, ha! I can guarantee I know all I need to know about the subject...although what that's got to do with my original quip is totally beyond me.
Bye, bye.

BBG, I've always resisted the temptation to filter people, but I fear this bloke may become the first. I don't mind his stubborn refusal to accept reality, but this cancel culture stuff is another matter altogether.

Oh dear, oh dear. You are the very exemplar of the cancel culture and woke nature of certain elements of our society and if you think you, or anyone else, is going to stop me making such comments, you've got another think coming.

Q, and how EXACTLY do you know they haven't gathered any support? Do you really think our company is going to all this trouble in attempt to persuade shareholders to vote in favour because they're worried about 5% voting against?
It's time you took your head out of the sand...you're likely to get bitten hard on your backside.

Q, stop being an utter arse. If you can't take a joke, particularly one which is a common figure of speech, you can go boil your head.
And as for inability to see what's as plain as the nose on your face...it beggars belief.

LOL, Jerry. p.s I did what I said I 'd do last night.

CGP, and whether they've managed to drum up any support from the others.
This is being taken very seriously by the company and yet you're still in some form of weird denial. I swear if NM kidnapped your kids and sold them into the slave trade, you'd say you didn't mind, provided it didn't interrupt the path to production.

Q, can't you? Really?

I was beginning to feel left out! But the postie has just delivered mine.
I intend to frame it.
I would love to know what's going on in the background, but the implication of the letter is clear: this is ALL about our independence.
I've never been so excited about an AGM.

rcgl, yes, you are right...up to a point. In my opinion, the circular was pretty anodyne and was designed to make everything sound as if it were 'run-of-the-mill" which, under normal circumstances, it would be. But these are self-evidently not normal circumstances.
And yes, the NM re-election is a normal process, but my earlier contention was that CGP may be using this Resolution for its own purposes. In fact, I'm becoming convinced of it.

copper, I voted in favour of his re-election, because eventually he'll negotiate a good price.

One other thing: I don't know what the Regulations say about this, but would it not have made sense for the Company to release some background info on what's going on? They could have explained the situation and also made a direct appeal to shareholders to vote with the Company.
Now that really would be good shareholder engagement!

People have often asked what became of the CGP suggestion that they were going to attempt to oust NM by way of an EGM. I wonder of CGP have simply decided to use the re-election at an AGM for that purpose? Perhaps they've been lobbying the main shareholders and NM has got wind of it?

Does anyone really doubt what's going on here? This most certainly is not part of some improved shareholder engagement process. It's totally unique.

rcgl, who knows, you may be right. But, can you tell me of one example where you've seen something similar?
I don't want to labour this point, but this approach is so unusual that in my mind it must indicate worry. The RNS was one thing, but to actively attempt to contact small private investors is a wholly different matter.

rcgl, I think your hypothesis is a bit of a stretch. It is pretty obvious there's concern - you don't go the bother of issuing explanations and then start contacting shareholders in the normal course of events. In fact, the only time I've seen direct shareholder contact has been at the time of a hostile takeover.
Of course, you may be right, but I'm simply basing my theory on past experience - which is obviously not necessarily a guide for current events.