6 thoughts on “Not Unexpected

  1. Good. Blue has been exposed over and over. Wonder what Oliver will discover and expose. Guessing we get a resignation within one year of a trustee.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. General Cook, it’s time to withdraw your name. Do not let the trustees use you as a pawn in their attempt to perpetuate their self dealing life-time positions.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Imagine what a dagger it would be to the current Trustees now if General Cook did wise up to realize he should want no part of this train wreck and resigns his nomination. They’ve already lost two thirds of the votes and probably don’t have a contingency plan for introducing a third nominee.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Can someone answer this question for me? At what point should a complaint be logged with the SEC on behalf of shareholders? The trustees have breached both their fiduciary duty as well as SEC rules surrounding contested board seats (as a candidate was brought forth by a 5% shareholder). They are now breaching rules that a court of law presented to THE TRUST ITSELF in 1972 about meetings requested by a 5% shareholders.

    I think the smaller shareholders, such as ourselves, should all be filing complaints to the SEC. If enough of us do so, actions could be taken.

    The trustees and management should be ashamed of themselves. Modernizing their pay plans and not modernizing the entity. CEO, CFO and executive management holding lifetime positions, and getting paid millions PER YEAR to simply cash checks on behalf of the trust (the water business has not yet become the primary source of income, so let’s not go there).

    It’s time they all resign.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. They also have a problem with basic math. They claimed that less that half of the 7,785,000 shares outstanding were represented at the meeting and those shareholders were disenfranchised.. The total votes came to 72.9% of the shares, with a total vote of 5,565,079 being cast. How much over 50% do they think more than half is? How can any court call them credible when they publish crap like this?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. So, what happens next? How does HK and Softvest respond? They have outmaneuverd the trustees during the trustee campaign and I expect they will not just sit tight and have as their only strategy one to dispute the recently filed lawsuit.

    I have considered a variety of possible outcomes. Both sides have clever lawyers so anything could happen.

    1. A negotiated settlement, Seems unlikely, but both sides have to realize this war is expensive, and distracting to the running of TPL. Is there a middle ground possible? Or are both sides so bitter that its impossible for any outcome other than total victory?

    2. HK and Softvest sue the trustees individually, as part of a class action suit. The exposure of the trustees is significant and even if they don’t prevail, would cause more than a few sleepless nights for the two trustees.

    3. HK and Softvest, by owning 5% of the shares outstanding could call for the removal of the two trustees in a special election. Another messy fill the mailboxes with proxies would result, and potentially more lawsuits. Its probable HK and Softvest could win given both the nearly 2:1 margin for Oliver, and the trustees 11th hour smokescreen to delay/do-over.

    4. I am not familiar with how Texas law would look at the meeting on 5/22. Was it legal? If so, is there a way to have some state oversight agency give the meeting the stamp of approval? Or use the bitter proxy fight with the 2:1 vote winning margin as the cornerstone of their defense to get the lawsuit dismissed?

    5. Does this put TPL in play? Could HK and Softvest partner with someone big enough to acquire 24% of the shares to assure a 50.1% majority to then have the trustees be hand picked for the plans HK/Softvest have?

    6. Other ideas that readers might have?

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.