“Fully-informed decision”

Texas Pacific Land Trust Releases Letter to Shareholders Regarding Recently-Filed Lawsuit against Eric Oliver

 

Let us be clear: although the Trust believes that Mr. Oliver is the wrong choice to become TPL’s next Trustee, in no way is it our goal to prevent shareholders from having their say. We simply believe that shareholders have the right to be fully and accurately informed before they vote – and that Mr. Oliver has misled you.

Unfortunately, the decision to file this lawsuit means that we must postpone our planned shareholder meeting, which had been scheduled to be convened today, May 22, 2019, and immediately adjourned until June 6, 2019. At this time, we do not know when the meeting will take place. Once this litigation is resolved – either in court or by Mr. Oliver providing the necessary disclosures – we will be able to reschedule the meeting.

We realize this news may be frustrating and we appreciate your continued patience. We have a responsibility to protect the interests of the Trust and all its shareholders and will continue to take the necessary steps to ensure you have all the information you need to make a fully-informed decision in this critical election about TPL’s future.

My sense is that there are a bunch of shareholders in Dallas that know exactly when the meeting we be.

Bloomberg coverage

2 thoughts on ““Fully-informed decision”

  1. “Unfortunately, the decision to file this lawsuit means that we must postpone our planned shareholder meeting, which had been scheduled to be convened today, May 22, 2019, and immediately adjourned until June 6, 2019. At this time, we do not know when the meeting will take place. Once this litigation is resolved – either in court or by Mr. Oliver providing the necessary disclosures – we will be able to reschedule the meeting.”

    I do believe the SEC may be needed here. According to what I read, the trust should have put Eric’s name on the single proxy that was sent out, and not have him send a separate proxy, given he was forwarded as a candidate by a consortium holding more than 5% of registered shares. I don’t think they have the right to hold his candidacy, hold our Trust hostage, or have the right to indefinitely suspend the normal workings of the Trust. And, I definitely think the lawsuit was filed in the wrong jurisdiction, based on past legal activity between shareholders and the Trust.

    https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-155.htm

    “We are adopting changes to the federal proxy rules to facilitate the effective
    exercise of shareholders’ traditional state law rights to nominate and elect directors to company
    boards of directors. The new rules will require, under certain circumstances, a company’s proxy
    materials to provide shareholders with information about, and the ability to vote for, a
    shareholder’s, or group of shareholders’, nominees for director. We believe that these rules will
    benefit shareholders by improving corporate suffrage, the disclosure provided in connection with
    corporate proxy solicitations, and communication between shareholders in the proxy process.
    The new rules apply only where, among other things, relevant state or foreign law does not
    prohibit shareholders from nominating directors. The new rules will require that specified
    disclosures be made concerning nominating shareholders or groups and their nominees. In
    addition, the new rules provide that companies must include in their proxy materials, under
    certain circumstances, shareholder proposals that seek to establish a procedure in the company’s
    governing documents for the inclusion of one or more shareholder director nominees in the
    company’s proxy materials.”

    Unless state law prevents HK from nominating a board member (would that be NY or TX?), then is TPL violating HK’s rights as per the SEC rules above? Based on my reading, TPL trustees have ZERO right to add arduous checklists and other bullshit requirements (that are not publicized) upon nominees. I would be shocked if any of the other two candidates ever completed the checklists, given HK found the conflict of interest, not the trustees.

    What a joke.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.