7 thoughts on “Will You Be My Valentine?

  1. “over their voting commitments pursuant to a stockholders’ agreement with the Company.” – It sounds like somebody is being called to the principal’s office!!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Can we say with certainty that the reason the Co-Chairs are conducting this postponement of the voting outcome on Proposal 4 is because it would have had the votes to pass IF the Stahl/Oliver voting block had voted for it?


  3. I think HK/Softvest will prevail. Several factors why:

    Its not a routine proposal, even if TPL Management says it is. You can’t call a duck a chicken because they both have feathers. If a legal tussle started over this, It would take years to resolve in Federal court, which retained jurisdiction with the 2019 agreement on the proxy fight.

    HK/Softvest did vote against director Dana M. last year. This was a deciding factor in the vote count to remove him. There were no repercussions. The takeaway is if matters, HK/Softvest can vote how they want, and the TPL board may not like it, but won’t stop it.

    The biggest remedy is the Board of Directors could vote to remove Stahl and Oliver as directors. If that happens, the agreement that ended the proxy fight also ends, and they can vote any way they want. Further, 2023 is the re-election year for Barry and Norris.

    Director Cook had over 2 million votes cast against him with no campaign to oppose him, and with the votes of HK/Softvest. A concerted campaign with the animosity of shareholders towards Barry and Norris could have them not re-elected in a landslide.

    And if they toss Oliver and Stahl off the board, its a safe bet they would be running in 2023. And have the votes to be elected back to the board.

    It feels like change is happening. Power is draining from the entrenched former trustees and management, and towards the real owners of the company (shareholders) who are gaining control.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Exactly Ted, when MS and EO voted against Dana and nothing was done a precedent was set. The old trustees lost much of the argument for the shareholders agreement being enforced in this matter.

      Plus as you indicated, MS and EO control too many votes on or off the board. I am convinced that prop 4 was a move to dilute MS-EO control as much as allow some kind of management freedom to acquire. For this reason, I do not see MS or EO voting yes even if it goes to court.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.