Didn't Phil and his cousin file a 13D that they held 8.2% together?

80% voted FOR transaction last time.

I think Gator's point is that with 91% voting YES and Phil's 8.2% holdings had to have voted NO-Dissent, that only leaves 0.8% of the vote for others to have voted NO  and NO-Dissent.   Seems like you would have had a lot more than that vote NO with or without to dissent just from people here on the board.

'jft310' pid='79402' datel Wrote:Fair to say people are tired of waiting and want their money without the drama of the dissent.

I think everyone believed this was going to pass but not by this much.  Looks like there were no grudges out there against IOC BoD and Hession as to how terribly they have ripped off shareholders.  Stock market psychologists may want to use this case for future dissertations for grad students to better understand investor psyche.

Now we wait for the court to approve the deal and IOC to contact all us dissenters with the "same fair offer" according to YBCA 193.  So here's our options as I understand it.

1.  Accept IOC's new "fair offer" which must, by law, be the same offer to all dissenters.  I'm guessing this is most likely an all cash deal amounting to the same amount (somewhere in the $50ish/share range) that non dissenters will get?  Any other thoughts?  What makes this appealing?   It would be a firm $ figure and dissenters might actually get paid and be over and out of this deal sooner than everyone else.  What's bad with this?  Once you accept the offer, my understanding is you must agree to forgo any future litigation.  So if Phil and company later sue for e.g., fraud and win, then you don't get to share.  I'm no lawyer, but that's what some lawyers I know have said.  Do our attorneys wish to comment on this statement?

2.  Instead of accepting the new "fair offer" once could decide to simply withdraw one's dissent.  If you do this AND you voted No on the deal, then you get treated the same as a Yes voter on the payout, BUT you have not given up rights (I think).  So if there is litigation about the deal later as commented above, then you could be included in any payout because you voted NO and did not sign away any rights.

3.  Reject the new offer (that is the same for all dissenters) and fight for a better deal  in court.  Maybe you could argue for more, or rather ride someone else's coattails (Phil?) to get a better deal, but it leads you to a situation where you might end up with the same, less or more payout AND you now may have legal bills to pay.  The ideal case would be if the court were to lump all dissenters into one bucket and let the deep pockets represent all.  But this is totally up to the court on whether to force this.  Once it gets to this phase the court has great leeway to resolve this however they feel.  The litigation is a black box and could stretch out.  There is no certainty as to how it will turn out or how long it will take.  And after all that, the outcome may not be good.  Anything can happen in court and with XOM now leading the effort and making the calls, I think we can rest assured they will be much more prepared than last time when IOC was leading when Phil kicked their butt.

Bottom line: I suspect there won't be much difference in the payout between option 1 vs. 2.  The dollar value will be comparable, but the timing will be different.  I'm guess dissenters will get paid all they are due and much sooner as they won't be waiting on recertification.    I don't see XOM e.g., adding 10% to the pot to make all dissenters go away.  But there is an small icecube chance in Hell that they might.

All comments welcome, especially if you are a Yukon Canadian corporate law attorney.