Do we have a poison pill? What are the exact details in English (not legalese) if so? I've asked before but never got a straight answer.
But in this case, isn't it irrelevant? This isn't about a potential hostile takeover. IFF there is a proxy war, it would be about the voting of existing shares. Poison pill in that situation is irrelevant. If Teams B, P, and D all converge, then Team S (the anti-shareholder regime) will need to rely on voter apathy from the retail investors pretty much. And Denver Smith keeps buying those potential votes, as seen in the last filing, as well. And I think he's well below any ownership threshhold that could trigger a normal poison pill; isn't that correct? The legal justification for poison pills are murky enough. Challenging authority within the existing realm of votes can't be legally justified in a free market system as I see it. He seems as entrenched and corrupt as any authoratian dictator in history to me. The people starve, and only the king eats. I think the people have had enough!
And I also grabbed anoter 10,000 anti-S votes! Because I will make the effort to cast my vote against incumbent Sam. I don't know where the poison pill, if any, is relevant in such a case.
Maybe he'll even be concerned about his own shares. Knowing full well that somebody else could create value and that he is not fit for the job to even create shareholder value for himself! Even he stands to benefit from standing down if push comes to shove it seems to me.
I also dismiss all folly that suggests Bandera and Pappas are duped. If I can see it, they can see so much more! Much higher intellect with those two, so I'm certain they are not duped and all such claims to the contrary are just fear and folly.
