MFS mfs limited

legal battle vs alternative proposal

  1. 339 Posts.
    The public has witnessed enough bad press, I don't think more legal battles will do anything good for the shareholders.

    1. Prolonged legal battle will bring up more bad press and scare potential investors away;

    2. Legal battle is expensive and a big distraction to management;

    3. The new Greenwood program did not bring up any new substantial negaives;

    4. I can't see Jenny Hutson the right front person to represent shareholder's interest given that she can't get the basic figure right, bear in mind, she is a lawyer and she will never lose whatever the outcome will be; I would feel more comfortable if there is a finacier with solid track record on board;

    5. Given that the deal with CVC is binding, should mfs wants to get out, CVC will certainly claims damage, endless legal battle will certainly benefit the shorters.



    To avoid more bad press, legal battles and to bring up the best effort of all these who have a interest in mfs, I propose that:

    1. Chris Scott appointed as a director, so he can work together with the existing board; Chris Scott has similar interest as other major shareholders, I can't see why they shouldn't work together to sort things out;

    and IF it turns out that the board and Chris Scott are unable to work together:

    2. An EGM called.



    Cheers



 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.