InvestorsHub Logo

HDGabor

07/03/22 5:19 PM

#382164 RE: lizzy241 #382158

l-

keep in mind the shorts

???. Of course not, but all outstanding could. The shorts ... the naked shorts could "influence" the vote as could generate more eligible vote - but not by shorts - than the outstanding shares.

I'm not understanding the assumption that Sarissa's current shares voted in 21, are you saying not Sarissa but anyone who owned those shares at the time of last proxy vote?

Yes, anyone who owned those shares at the time of last proxy vote

I would like to know why there were so many broker non- votes???

Because the broker did not get any instruction how to vote with these shares (94,134,724). Top of it other 118,151,359 shares* did not vote ... 212,286,083 did not vote as "For" or "Against" or "Abstentions" ... 53% of the outstanding.
* Dunno where this share are ... maybe these are owned by overseas

Have you ever tried to ignore a hired gun to get out the vote? They are relentless.

Nope ... never called me*, but I ignore a lot of relentless and that human does not exist who could get my vote if it is not my intention.
(*I was not could by any proxy solicitor ever, inc. the current AMRN's proxy, meanwhile I own shares.)
Best,
g