I am totally flummoxed at how InterOil has the temerity to categorize the Proxy Votes as being "Overwhelmingly" against "Mulacek" and therefore indicative of a clear WIN in the Raw Deal Vote.

The Vote Tally was not DECISIVE whatsoever ... they were very close to the 34% required to kill this Raw Deal.

AND DON'T FORGET, the confusion caused by having so many Proxies delivered played a role in the voting. When the Raw Deal is voted upon, there will be only one piece of paper where you vote NO or YES.

I personally think that many people/ Institutions who voted AGAINST the Dissident Resolution will vote NO to this bad Deal that, quite obviously, screws IOC Shareholders out of their assets. In addition, a large percentage of non-Votes will vote NO to the Raw Deal.

I bet that Stevie Cohen did not vote, but will Vote NO to the Raw Deal.

On the other hand, properly modified Raw Deal terms will be accepted by most IOC Shareholders​.

Here are the Proxy Votes as tallied by InterOil:

'Stavros' pid='72380' datel Wrote:

I am totally flummoxed at how InterOil has the temerity to categorize the Proxy Votes as being "Overwhelmingly" against "Mulacek" and therefore indicative of a clear WIN in the Raw Deal Vote.

The Vote Tally was not DECISIVE whatsoever ... they were very close to the 34% required to kill this Raw Deal.

AND DON'T FORGET, the confusion caused by having so many Proxies delivered played a role in the voting. When the Raw Deal is voted upon, there will be only one piece of paper where you vote NO or YES.

I personally think that many people/ Institutions who voted AGAINST the Dissident Resolution will vote NO to this bad Deal that, quite obviously, screws IOC Shareholders out of their assets. In addition, a large percentage of non-Votes will vote NO to the Raw Deal.

I bet that Stevie Cohen did not vote, but will Vote NO to the Raw Deal.

On the other hand, properly modified Raw Deal terms will be accepted by most IOC Shareholders​.

Here are the Proxy Votes as tallied by InterOil:

InterOil Proposals Presented at the Meeting
				% Votes AGAINST	% Votes AGAINST
	Voted FOR	Voted AGAINST	Total VOTES	(Shares Voted)	(Total Shares)
InterOil New Plan Resolution	22,399,736	12,236,275	34,636,011	35.33%	23.95%
InterOil Appointment of Auditors	34,262,436	368,552	34,630,988	1.06%	0.72%
InterOil Mulacek Expenses Denial Resolution	25,938,795	8,692,193	34,630,988	25.10%	17.01%
Dissident Resolutions Presented at the Meeting
				% Votes For	% Votes For
	Voted For	Voted Against	Total Votes	(Shares Voted)	(Total Shares)
Dissident Resolutions Presented at the Meeting	10,916,801	23,716,710	34,633,511	31.52%	21.36%
Dissident Compensation Committee Charter Resolution	13,487,651	21,145,860	34,633,511	38.94%	26.39%
Dissident Nomination and Governance Committee Resolution'	10,911,169	23,722,342	34,633,511	31.50%	21.35%
Dssident Reserves Governance Committee Resolution	10,893,756	23,739,755	34,633,511	31.45%	21.32%
Dissident Material Transactions Resolution	10,832,624	23,800,887	34,633,511	31.28%	21.20%
Dissident Disclosure Policy Resolution	10,944,293	23,689,228	34,633,521	31.60%	21.42%

'Stavros' pid='72391' datel Wrote:Katy: I've taken courses in Marketing and I was Director of Business Development and Licensing at a major EPC Company for several years. All instructors taught that by promulgating obvious LIES, you alienated your customers and drove them to your competition. Many Clients came to me because my competition lied about their offerings.

C'mon Stavros, it isn't a "lie" to tout the vote percentage data which were in the company's favor.  You surely aren't (?) suggesting that this "lie" will harm them in the next round.   Perhaps you have come across the dictum attributed to a British diplomat of years past:  a lie isn't really a lie when everyone knows it to be a lie. 

btw, the British have a common expression to react to the "overwhelmingly" term.   It is "they would say that, wouldn't they?"

'Stavros' pid='72393' datel Wrote:Your points are well taken Katy. Perhaps IOC used "Overwhelming" in this context: "Used to describe something that is so confusing, difficult, etc., that you feel unable to do it" . . . ie, they know they cannot stop a NO VOTE

Ha! You may be right.  I wish I knew what they know now and knew when on a lot of issues....

'katytrader' pid='72392' dateline='<a href="tel:1466131 Wrote:

'Stavros' pid='72391' dateline='<a href="tel:1466130 Wrote:Katy: I've taken courses in Marketing and I was Director of Business Development and Licensing at a major EPC Company for several years. All instructors taught that by promulgating obvious LIES, you alienated your customers and drove them to your competition. Many Clients came to me because my competition lied about their offerings.

C'mon Stavros, it isn't a "lie" to tout the vote percentage data which were in the company's favor.  You surely aren't (?) suggesting that this "lie" will harm them in the next round.   Perhaps you have come across the dictum attributed to a British diplomat of years past:  a lie isn't really a lie when everyone knows it to be a lie. 

btw, the British have a common expression to react to the "overwhelmingly" term.   It is "they would say that, wouldn't they?"

Katy, I may be in the minority to suggest that a lie is always a lie.  Just as misrepresenting information to shareholders and not upholding a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders is mismanagement.  Sadly, this corporate environment rewards and therefore breeds this behavior in many corporations.  Equally, many who are put in the position to judge such actions are tainted as well.  Also, for the record, I too am trained in business, management and marketing.  MH's apparent misleading is inappropriate and the BOD to allow this is corrupt.