I believe that the Annual Meeting is really only important because it's part of the means to an end. Nothing can be announced at the Annual Meeting that either isn't already public or becomes public by release at the time of the meeting. On the other hand, without the meeting the company will be strapped for cash and unable to issue stock to either raise funds or permit an equity partnership that brings in funds.
At the Annual Meeting there will probably be a number of votes, some for who's on the BOD, others on the auditor, etc. but the only one that's highly meaningful will be the one authorizing more shares. If the company is still in a quiet period, because the Journal isn't out, the vote that will probably face the most opposition is the one authorizing more shares. Frankly investors voting against it are shooting themselves in the foot if they muster enough votes to defeat it. It may force the company's hand to break their agreement with the Journal and release more information then hold a special meeting and vote again. The company's hand in negotiating with other companies would greatly be weakened.
The Journal on the other hand will provide all sorts of information, end the sequester imposed by the Journal and open the door to the company speaking freely about what's happened in the last few years since they began the quiet period.
Personally I'll support what management decides to do, but if it's forced to have the Annual Meeting prior to the Journal I hope we investors can understand their position, vote in favor of their proposals, and be willing to wait for the Journal and listen to what they have to say prior without heavy criticism.
Gary
