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.”
ATG/Gliksberg took to Twitter to elaborate by posting the full reply from the SEC. The letter, dated 11/23, states that Gliksberg can cure the one basis for exclusion found by the SEC by modifying some language in the proposal that would allow for elected directors to not have their terms shortened should the proposal be successful. Gliksberg has a week to act.
I don’t remember electing any directors, but that’s beside the point.
Let’s say Gliksberg modifies the language. That gets us to 11/30. From there, the proposal gets into the new updated proxy which then goes right to the printer. Maybe it arrives in your mailbox in the second week of December?
Come for the investment. Stay for the show. Never a dull moment.
But seriously, Happy Thanksgiving! We have much to be thankful for. (Including my poor grammar).
In light of the above, TPL’s current Board structure is clearly out-of-step with corporate governance best practices and the consensus policies of the public company community. What is more, the Board’s resistance to modernizing its structure by declassifying is both unexplained and, frankly, inexplicable. If the Board honestly believes as faithful corporate fiduciaries that there are good reasons for retaining its antiquated classification scheme, then one would have expected it to invite a vigorous debate with its shareholders on the question at the upcoming Annual Meeting.
Hard to argue with a call for modern governance.
Why does it have to come to this? Elliot just got two seats on DUK’s board with 0.2% ownership but we can’t vote on proposals from passionate, long term shareholders? Something isn’t right.
When will the board align itself with shareholders?
It is hard to argue against modern corporate governance standings but, predictably, TPL has found a way. Would suggest that shareholders read this proposal and management’s response in its entirety.
At this point it is fair to say that TPL management holds the shareholders in very low regard. We appear to have an HBS-case-magnitude agency problem on our hands. I will respond in turn and vote no or abstain on all director and currently known proposal votes.