ERHC Energy Inc (ERHE)

[nordicroots]

By specifying "annual" it would seem to me that this would serve to indicate the stated intent for the frequency at which it will be held. By focusing on the date determined by resolution of the board you seem to wish to give them a pass to interpret what sort of frequency for an "annual" meeting would be appropriate. In other words if they wanted to decide for themselves that an annual meeting was appropriate once every 5 years for example, that would be OK simply because they resolved to hold it at such intervals. My thinking is that by not sticking to the annual frequency as denoted by the term "annual" they are not adhering to either the spirit or intent of that provision.

Now whether it is simply a matter of avoiding the cost of holding such a meeting that would seem to be something of a different matter. If we explore that a little, I would observe that many small companies will opt for smaller meetings at low key/low cost locations and avoid spending all sorts of money on "extras" like the full color annual reports that although distributed by some of the larger companies in the industry as a matter of standard practice. Doing annual meetings the wrong way can introduce some additional cost burdens that the smaller players cannot reasonably shoulder and shareholders usually look favorably on such cost consciousness and management determination to avoid unnecessary costs. So in those instances I don't think it would not be out of line to expect at least a barebones meeting with minimal expenses wrapped up in preparing reports and handouts. And preferably to be held according to a date scheduled at the board's choosing - but at least annually.

I will digress for a moment to recount something that influenced me greatly as a teenager watching my relatives invest their hard earned money. One aunt in particular (she made investing her hobby and later her primary means of income) was pretty vocal in expressing her views with the management of the companies she invested in - especially if they could not turn a reliable stream of profits. I recall times she was pretty critical of them for wasting shareholder capital on fancy color printed materials when they could simply print the reports on newsprint at a much lower cost. She did have the ability to influence those she entrusted her capital to and if the company management team could not grasp what their responsibilities were she would fire them. For a small investor it meant either voting them out such that they were literally fired from their positions or she would sell the shares and find a better management team that could be relied on to provide the business performance necessary to ensure reasonable shareholder returns. She was a very sharp woman - may she rest in peace.