bidrite, I have three possible scenario's in my mind that i can somehow substantiate with arguments. there are possibly others but i don't see them.
A) All 4 Agree but ES votes AGAINST
This scenario would be because ES is part of a company that holds PPHM shares and sitting in both BoD's he might have had a conflict of interest. Everybody sees the shelf as potential for further dilution and while i personally don't see it that way when it comes to value due to the high leverage of the invested raised cash it is without any doubt a dilutions of voting power because there is NO counter weight for that.
B) SK against the bike with the two side-wheels.
In this scenario SK might have been against and the others for. But because SK is the CEO and represents the company and signs of he controls the way all this will be presented and that might explain why this vote is set-up to result in a NO while the advice is to vote YES. Could also mean that SK's position could be under fire.
C) Scenario B with ES voting against too
Even under scenario B technically speaking ES would/could still have a conflict in interest. Hence SK and ES voted against but since Carlton , as the chairmen, voted for with Pohl his vote will have determined to final outcome.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
