Gliksberg Responds

Couldn’t all this be avoided with proof of ownership shared widely? You know, straightforward truth.

Given the clear representation in your December 20 letter that the Board “conducted an inquiry into the matter” of Mr. McGinnis’s stock ownership, the Board should immediately and publicly release the results of that inquiry to all of the Company’s stockholders.  All I have ever sought is the truth about a straightforward factual question:  were the representations about who the Company’s second largest stockholder was back in 2019 factually accurate or not?  The Board’s refusal to provide an answer to that straightforward question with supporting documentation is what ultimately led to my Delaware lawsuit.  Even now, the Board refuses to disclose the results of its “inquiry” to stockholders – a remarkable fact given that the Board is affirmatively asking the stockholders to reelect Mr. McGinnis as a director.  If the Board now has determined the answer to the question of Mr. McGinnis’s ownership and has evidence to support its conclusion, then it should publicly set the record straight instead of grandstanding.  Transparency – rather than more obfuscation – is what would be in the “best interest of all stockholders.” 

4 thoughts on “Gliksberg Responds

  1. What if trustees Barry and Norris knew McGinnis didn’t manage/own/control the shares he said he did? If they knew, and still proceeded to put McGinnis on the board, its more than a little wrong. Its a moral failure in the name of winning at all costs,

    This is big enough to topple their board positions. Which explains why they and the board are opposing sharing any information. They don’t have anything to share to make their case, so are using the stonewall method. In essence they are trying to preserve their director positions.

    What I first couldn’t understand is how a majority of the 9 person board could have voted to not share this “inquiry”, and evidently think whatever the facts show is fine. Then I did the math: Barry, Norris, Cook, McGinnis and Glover would be a majority at 5 votes. Now it makes sense. Its probably not unanimous with all 9 directors.

    Thats why its very important to vote out McGinnis and Glover. I’d consider voting for Barbara Duganier, if she had any public statement to shareholders so we knew where she stands on these issues. Assuming she stays quiet by the time I get my ballot will result in her getting my negative vote also.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Barbara does not own any shares of TPL, that was an automatic no vote for me. If you did not buy a single share of TPL with your exuberant salary, you are not aligned with shareholders in my view, and do not deserve to be on the board.

      Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.