Skyline Enterprises of Queenstown could take legal action against shareholder

0

Queenstown tourism giant Skyline Enterprises is considering legal action against a shareholder after comments published by the Otago Daily Times on Saturday. Photo / Supplied

Queenstown tourism giant Skyline Enterprises is considering legal action against a shareholder after comments published by the Otago Daily Times on Saturday.

Cath Gilmour, of Queenstown, admits she inadvertently erred when she told the ODT that shareholders voted four to one in favor of returning the $ 7.9 million wage subsidy that ‘she had taken last year.

In fact, ahead of the company’s annual meeting on Friday, shareholders voted four to one against a motion, tabled by Gilmour and his fellow shareholder John Hilhorst last month, that urged the company to return the money.

Skyline Enterprises president Jan Hunt said she was “appalled” by the comments, which were incorrect in other respects.

“We take legal advice with a view to taking legal action, both for trademark and reputational damage.

“We don’t take this lightly.”

Gilmour was wrong to say that the directors decided to change the method of voting on the motion from a shareholder vote to a poll vote, in which the number of votes corresponded to the shares held by an individual.

Poll voting was legally required by share register provider Computershare as the meeting was held by video conference, she said.

“You can’t have a show of hands in a Zoom meeting – it just doesn’t work.

“So it’s not illegal, and as far as the ballot goes, it made no difference to the outcome.”

Gilmour and Hilhorst should have known before the meeting, Hunt said.

“Everyone was aware of this, and we looked in detail to make sure the process was 100% correct. “

According to the polling method, 95.4% of the votes were cast against the resolution.

Gilmour and Hilhorst filed their motion last month, saying it was a “moral issue” for the company, given that it had recorded an after-tax profit of $ 56.7 million during of the last fiscal year.

Gilmour said yesterday that it would be “inappropriate” for her to comment further, other than saying she emailed ODT as soon as she realized her mistake and copied Hunt into the e- mail.

Hunt said whether or not the wage subsidy return was “not a moral issue.”

“My role, and the role of the board, is for all of our shareholders, and our shareholders voted 95.4% to say you should keep the wage subsidy.”

The company’s “true profit” in the last fiscal year was $ 6.9 million, and most of the reported profit came from real estate revaluations.

Shareholders had not received a dividend in the past two years, she said.

“We could legally take, and had to take, the wage subsidy.”


Source link

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.