Aiming to become the global leader in chip-scale photonic solutions by deploying Optical Interposer technology to enable the seamless integration of electronics and photonics for a broad range of vertical market applications

Free
Message: Let’s try to stay logical

 

Lumenge & Rainer,

 

Lumenge, thank you for your poise, and your well-chosen framing of this letter.  It addresses my current concerns.

 

Rainer, I have nothing but admiration for your many valued contributions to this forum for which I’m grateful, but unless you have a license to practice securities law in Canada your considered opinion holds little weight relative to National Policy 62-202.  Who knows what ‘absent unusual circumstances’, means or doesn’t mean?  For example: Has the new regulation/law been tested?

 

Only a fool is his own lawyer, from what I read in FJ’s short text the Shareholder Rights Plans remains a somewhat gray area, seemly not to have completely been superseded by the new regulations.

 

Is there any harm in to keeping the SRP?  Can it not be abandoned it when we are sure & certain it is no longer serves as a valid protective measure?

 

Frankly, I don’t feel wishy-washy at all here.  I will to sign Lumenge’s letter.

 

For any forum members who feel uncertain about signing the letter, ask yourself if possible takeover protection impedes progress on the technical optimization of any Poet product or project?  Logically, this action falls into the sphere administrative and legal governance and is divorced from actions that would impact Poet’s technical operations.

 

The reality is that as common stock shareholders we bare great risk and have few ways to protect our holdings.  Normally, beyond voting once a year for measures that management places on a (ballot) proxy form we are currently a virtually powerless voice. My hope is that our collective response to shareholder neglect serves as a wake-up call to Poet’s management.

 

Thinking beyond what management’s actions may or may not bring us, why would anyone give up an existing contractual agreement that may offer a measure of protection against an action that could potentially cause harm and personal loss?

 

Lastly, without managements advance communication explaining their reasoning on the SRP, how could asking to maintain a currently existing shareholder protection be bad for you?

 

Again, thank you Lumenge for beautifully composed letter, and Rainer thank you for all your contributions.

 

TMI

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply