InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 20
Posts 1031
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/17/2006

Re: None

Saturday, 03/15/2008 9:32:00 AM

Saturday, March 15, 2008 9:32:00 AM

Post# of 27567
I just had another thought re: JPM.

Seems to me that one of the jobs of Trustee would have been to keep track of unitholders over the years, who they are and where they are in order to perform their duty of communication, royalty distribution, and so forth.

Surely the missing holders didn't "disappear" all at once. Now, all of a sudden, not enough can be found for an active quorum. If jpm was reasonably diligent, they must have been aware that some unitholders were "dropping out" of contact bit by bit over time and they could have called a vote to amend the rules to address this problem before it droppped below the critical 50% level. Obviously it has been in every other party's interest except the unitholders to allow the situation to deteriorate to the point of disfunction in this regard.

I recall someone mentioning that JPM initiated some sort of "negative" vote. The implied proposition that absentee unitholders would accede to impoverishing and disenfranchising themselves is preposterious.



Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.