Marcus is right. If the company is to be delisted due to its inability to reinvest in another business, there is then no better reason than for shareholders to ask for liquidation of the delisted company, and it is no longer oppression of minorities, remember we are the majorities in terms of shareholdings, only minorities because we don't control the board. The AGM is the ultimate venue for corporate control, not the Board. Remember, this is time for shareholders activism to fight for your rights.

Cipta, put it this way. If management is prepared to buy you out at $1.10 but failed, why not buy the same share in the market at 50 cents and then make another offer one year later, with less shares to pay for, saving 60 cents per share along the way?

Cipta, it is a no brainer for management to buy back own shares below cash backing per share, unless you want to buy it cheap yourself.

balvin71, you are right. On a strict interpretation of the rules, major shareholders who are directors of the company should not even vote on the payment of directors' fees to themselves as this will be related parties transactions.

If the proposal is rejected, the independent directors of the board should be made to bear the expenses incurred by the company for proposing such a lopsided deal to the members in the first place. In a general offer, the buyer bears most all the costs and must show evidence of having the financial resources to do the deal. In a SCR, the company pays most of it, including the cost of the purchase itself, so essentially a free ride at no risk or cost to the buyer.

If your shares goes from $1.10 back to 60 sen, the offerors' loss is from $3.27 had the deal gone through, who will be the bigger loser here?

For a comparison of how generous the SCR offer is compared to recent cases, take a look at this
https://1drv.ms/x/s!AgLvGZpm89Yskj8c1XUUcaN5NDon
There has been only one failed SCR exercise in recently years, Ireka, which was offered at the same discount to NAV as the present one. So now management is allow you to withdraw your own share of the capital from the company after a steep haircut and you are supposed to thank them for giving you the opportunity to do so, how reasonable of them. The company is worth more dead (unlisted) than alive and that is why they want to kick out the minorities.

6 million

Sorry, not one vote by the absentee member, rather one member voting, under the 50% majority requirement.

Just to clarify, even though a shareholder can only appoint a maximum of 2 proxies, there is no limit to the number of proxies that a shareholder can represent at the meeting, this is same as appointing the Chairman of the meeting as your proxy, except that instead of the chairman, it is another person. Each separate proxy counts as one vote by the absentee member.

Hi all, I am new to this blog, just joined, but some of you may remember my shareholder activism in the past
https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2009/03/27/dissolution-of-ahp2-trust-to-benefit-unitholders/
https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2012/11/09/not-a-hostile-takeover/
My group of investors have collected more than 2% of the outstanding MAA shares with the intention of fighting for a fairer offer price. In order to talk to the offeror from a position of strength, we will need an indication of the number of hands or proxies that will vote against the offer as it stands. Time is running out, so please indicate the numbers here ASAP. A single shareholder can appoint a maximum of only 2 proxies, so we need bodies/hands, not shareholdings.