I understand what you’re saying but I am saying they can meet the legal requirements in some cases of a majority of outstanding share owners that are legally needed to approve an action by getting the commitment of a block of large holders to agree to said changes. At that point they declare the need for def 14 a moot point and move on. It’s more normal that companies have a fractured share ownership and there is no 2 or 3 large blocks they can solicit to gain 51% approval so they need a proxy vote.
This 154 million Pasaca voting notes got me thinking. If the o/s is 690m they need 345m and Pasaca just got 154m voting notes. Now they need 191m. I don’t feel I know or remember enough about who actually owns the stock because of non-filing but the last k says these three groups, officers, Hoppel and Carson have 167m now they need 24m and Squires alone has that many options and other insiders have that many needed options that are all in the money now. Maybe a good reason to move the stock up and put warrants and options in the money to exercise for votes as well.
We’ll see what they do but I just proved the math that a minority of holders have the majority of share control so the expense and semantics of a proxy are unnecessary. Squires has positioned the stock distribution so that if they did a proxy your vote is meaningless and not required if it differs with the direction he wants the company to go.
Directors and Executive Officers as a group of 5 persons 93,857,468
Lucas Hoppel (9) 44,791,667.
Carson Group (10) 28,171,920.