Have you ever been to any company's AGM whose resolution was not passed?

I was just wondering. Every year during AGM, shareholders are required to vote FOR and AGAINST resolution proposed by the Board Of Director (BOD). Has there any been any cases where the resolution was not passed?

If everytime the resolution gets passed, the AGMs is sort of like quite meaningless. Singapore was unlike US whose shareholders vote against the remuneration of CitiGroup's CEO. I was hoping that one day, we could be more like our US counterparts who dare to unite together and overturn any lousy or bad resolution proposed by the BOD.

(26-04-2012, 12:48 PM)Some-one Wrote: I was just wondering. Every year during AGM, shareholders are required to vote FOR and AGAINST resolution proposed by the Board Of Director (BOD). Has there any been any cases where the resolution was not passed?

Perhaps you do not remember the Robinsons saga some years ago, where the Chairman Michael Wong Pakshong was NOT re-elected. Lippo bought a controlling stake in Robinsons and was overhauling the board. Apparently the Chairman refused to go quietly into the night, so they deposed him in public.

Some-one Wrote:If everytime the resolution gets passed, the AGMs is sort of like quite meaningless. Singapore was unlike US whose shareholders vote against the remuneration of CitiGroup's CEO. I was hoping that one day, we could be more like our US counterparts who dare to unite together and overturn any lousy or bad resolution proposed by the BOD.

FYI the remuneration voting in the US (and UK) is non-binding. The management is free to ignore it. In practice the financial institutions have not meaningfully reduced pay, they have simply changed the weighting of base versus bonus etc. Many bankers have actually seen an INCREASE in base pay, because their bonus is being reduced (as a multiple of base pay). So the net annual salary remains the same.

Fundamentally, one share = one vote. Capitalism is corporate democracy in action. If you have 50% + 1, you have near-absolute power. If you are a minority shareholder, you are powerless unless you can definitively prove minority oppression. How much are you willing to pay in legal fees ?

In the US shareholdings are very fragmented. Very often the biggest shareholders (pension funds) are completely passive and let the management run wild. Activists who shake things up are the exception, not the rule. Ditto in Europe and Australia.

In Asia shareholdings are more concentrated. Very often the biggest shareholders are the founding family. Activism is even rarer than in the US. Successful activism is exceedingly rare.

Of course, it is not always one share = one vote. Sometimes it is one share = many votes. Some shareholders are more equal than others. Singapore does not allow multiple share classes (except for SPH which is a special case) but such arrangements are not uncommon around the world.

(26-04-2012, 02:48 PM)d.o.g. Wrote:

(26-04-2012, 12:48 PM)Some-one Wrote: I was just wondering. Every year during AGM, shareholders are required to vote FOR and AGAINST resolution proposed by the Board Of Director (BOD). Has there any been any cases where the resolution was not passed?

Perhaps you do not remember the Robinsons saga some years ago, where the Chairman Michael Wong Pakshong was NOT re-elected. Lippo bought a controlling stake in Robinsons and was overhauling the board. Apparently the Chairman refused to go quietly into the night, so they deposed him in public.

Perhaps at that time, I am still young and really cannot be bothered about buying shares. I only want to pass my courses in the University. However, from what you have wrote, Lippo has a controlling stake and Lippo can single handedly vote off the Chairman. Do we have cases like the public shareholders who vote out some poor directors instead of a single controlling shareholder?

The Robinson's saga was in 2006.

Earlier this year, several major shareholders also booted out Chairman Ng Ser Miang from the board of Wearnes at the AGM.
http://business.asiaone.com/print/Busine...21146.html

For reits, I have always voted against the resolution authorising the manager to issue new shares (before an actual purpose has been identified and communicated). Usually results show about 10-15% of unitholders joining me to vote against. Hope more people join me in future until we succeed. Let's cultivate a spirit of activitism.

UMS Holdings : 98.8 % voted against resolution 9

http://umsgroup.listedcompany.com/news.html/id/298550

http://umsgroup.listedcompany.com/newsro...A628.1.pdf

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

The Board of Directors of UMS Holdings Limited (the "Company") are pleased to announce that the Annual General Meeting ("AGM") held on 25 April 2012 which was conducted via poll, all resolutions relating to the matters set out in the Notice of AGM were duly passed except for:-

a. Resolution 9 - To give authority to the Directors to offer and grant options and/or grant awards and to allot and issue shares, pursuant to the UMS Share Option Scheme, UMS Performance Share Plan and UMS Restricted Share Plan.

Weird that the big shareholder voted against it.

(26-04-2012, 04:03 PM)Some-one Wrote:

(26-04-2012, 02:48 PM)d.o.g. Wrote:

(26-04-2012, 12:48 PM)Some-one Wrote: I was just wondering. Every year during AGM, shareholders are required to vote FOR and AGAINST resolution proposed by the Board Of Director (BOD). Has there any been any cases where the resolution was not passed?

Perhaps you do not remember the Robinsons saga some years ago, where the Chairman Michael Wong Pakshong was NOT re-elected. Lippo bought a controlling stake in Robinsons and was overhauling the board. Apparently the Chairman refused to go quietly into the night, so they deposed him in public.

Perhaps at that time, I am still young and really cannot be bothered about buying shares. I only want to pass my courses in the University. However, from what you have wrote, Lippo has a controlling stake and Lippo can single handedly vote off the Chairman. Do we have cases like the public shareholders who vote out some poor directors instead of a single controlling shareholder?

Look at the Grand Banks Yatch recent AGM & EGM in 2H 2011 where shareholders voted out the Management team.