focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
Ed
It also leaves the company with some non-trivial legal jeopardy hanging about as the Canadian courts have confirmed many times that companies cannot delegate their duties to shareholders by relying on brokers and transfer agents. So all it would take would be one resources UK holder to start the legal process and it would be an expensive one for the company, that they would almost certainly loose.
Worth it to force through a consolidation?
Ed
Yes that does appear to be the general attitude in the UK. In Canada the rules are much different, and focused on shareholder rights, so I disagree with you still. Based on its Canadian incorporation the company has a duty to actively inform its shareholders of the AGM and actively collect their votes. Blaming it on poor brokers and transfer agents is pure dereliction of duty on the company’s part IMO.
FOOLSGOLD
The confusion stems from the fact that you are using current shares outstanding to do you MCAP calculations. If you use the total number of shares when the bonds are fully converted in your calcs, the MCAP makes more sense.
Jiddy
In the Canadian regs corporations have a positive duty to inform shareholders and collect their votes. That is to say blaming it on third parties (brokers or transfer agents) does not absolve the company of their duties to their shareholders. The courts in Canada have upheld this in several cases.
I implore you and others to contact the ASC & OSC, as they tend to be very shareholder biased and would be interested to know you and others votes have been disenfranchised. People are not allowed to file complaints for others in Canada so you will have to do it yourself.
Here you simply aren’t allowed to sell people shares without allowing them to vote.
Doug
I would implore you to contact the Canadian regulators (ASC and OSC), as the Canadian courts in the past have, in similar instances, upheld the responsibility of the company to inform shareholders of the AGM and collect their votes, regardless of if they have hired a transfer agent or not.
That is to say the company cannot delegate their duty to shareholders simply by hiring a third party company.
Oh I will also add, if you are looking for information, the regulatory bodies to contact in Canada would be:
Alberta Securities Commission
They are the regulator for the jurisdiction in which COPL is registered as a corporation in Canada
&
Ontario Securities Commission
They are the regulator for the jurisdiction in which the exchange COPL trades on is located in Canada.
You guys may find this interesting.
From the Canadian Business Corporations Act (CBCA) which is the Canadian legislation that governs Canadian registered public companies (of which COPL is one);
“List of shareholders entitled to receive notice
138Â (1)Â A corporation shall prepare an alphabetical list of its shareholders entitled to receive notice of a meeting, showing the number of shares held by each shareholder,
(a)Â if a record date is fixed under paragraph 134(1)(c), not later than ten days after that date; or
(b) if no record date is fixed, on the record date established under paragraph 134(2)(a).”
And
“Notice of meeting
135Â (1)Â Notice of the time and place of a meeting of shareholders shall be sent within the prescribed period to
(a)Â each shareholder entitled to vote at the meeting;
(b)Â each director; and
(c) the auditor of the corporation.”
Any shareholder is entitled to request the share register after getting a notarized letter saying they will abide by the CBCA once you have received the share register, as there is some requirements of the receiving party (the process is all laid out in the legislation, and is easy to understand, I’m happy to point out the details if anyone is interested).
If your name is in the register it is required that you receive both notice of the AGM as well as the ability to vote.
Cyprus
The assets are the same regardless of the management or BoD.
If you feel this is acceptable behaviour from a management team and BoD, you are sorely mistaken.
COPL does not have anything remotely resembling corporate governance, and particularly because of the quality of the assets it would be in the best interest of shareholders for that to change.
Fin,
Even though you tend to be quite rude. The information is available on SEDI.
Arthur holds
Indirect ownership (Pershing) - 993,455 shares
Indirect ownership (Haywood) - 1,085,793 shares
Direct ownership - 1,266,768
Options - 5,172,988