Suzy dilly LinkedIn post10 Mar 2020 10:45
The first assumption in any science experiment is that if you do something exactly the same, a second time, you will get the same result. The apple will still fall from the tree, the water will still swirl the same way round the plughole (unless you move to Australia) and the toast will usually land butter side down.
Perhaps that last example just goes to show why replicates of experiments are carried out, as every so often the cat will catch the toast and it won’t land at all.
But what if you try to apply science to people? I’m a scientist by training (and if you talk to my mum she’ll say I was from much younger) so have to give it a try.
Valirx plc (AIM:VAL) have released a circular for a general meeting requesting three resolutions to be passed which will ultimately allow them to raise much-needed financing to keep the business alive. It seems like common sense that those resolutions should be passed if the shareholders wish the company to continue.
In fact those exact resolutions were presented to a GM less than a month ago and met with a resounding “NO” from shareholders – although the numbers of votes were not released, it is broadly speculated that they were nowhere near the borderline as both the ordinary resolutions and the special were defeated.
The reasons for rejection were simple, and although some voters may have different reasons, an aggregated group representing over 5% of the voting rights of the company immediately presented their concerns formally, alongside their recommendations for changes that would encourage them to vote “YES” equally loudly if the resolutions were presented again.
Central to all of these recommendations were an overhaul to the management team and cutting of overheads. Specifically, the removal of George Morris (Chief Operating Officer) from both directorship and employment, and the reduction of salaries of all other directors. A recommendation to put myself as a director was asserted, and intended as a negotiable point based on my future plans to both save and grow the company.
The recommendations were acknowledged, with a promise to consider, but no negotiation entered in to, and no alternative proposal for substantial change presented.
With lack of affirmative action, the shareholders representing 5% have now submitted a requisition letter to the board demanding a meeting to present the resolutions that both George Morris and Satu Vainikka (the CEO) be removed as directors. The latter added due to her perceived failure in leadership to even communicate with those trying to negotiate a better future for the company – however, this latter points likely remains negotiable should she demonstrate such leadership skills now in taking charge of her board. Retaining a position of director (albeit not CEO) seems a reasonable compromise for the founder and CEO.
So what has changed in that last month that might make the shareholders reconsider their vote? One other RNS has been released
Sign In
Follow the stocks
