Removal of Officers and/or Directors

[2126]

Under the Bylaws of IOC, Directors may be removed in the following manner:

 Under Bylaws #2, Section 13. Removal. "Subject to the provisions of the Act, the shareholders of the Corporation may by ordinary resolution at a special meeting remove any director from office before the expiration of his or her term of office and may, subject to the provisions of the Act and Paragraph 11 of this by-law, elect any person in his or her stead for the remainder of the director's term."

Regarding the removal of an Officer [such as the CEO}, Under Bylaws #2, Section 32, Removal of Officers and Vacation of Office. "Subject to the articles, all officers, employees and agents, shall be subject to removal by resolution of the directors at any time, with or without cause."

Thus, a Special Meeting would need to be called for the purpose of 1] the removal of the Directors of IOC and 2] a vote to replace said directors with new directors for the remainder of the directors' terms. Once the new directors are in place, they can remove the CEO by resolutin and without cause.

In order for the shareholders to call such a Special Meeting, the provisions of Section 46 apply: Meeting on Requisition of Shareholders. "The registered holders or beneficial owners of not less than five percent (5%) of the issued shares of the Corporation that carry the right to vote at a meeting sought to be held may requisition the directors to call a meeting of shareholders for the purposes stated in the requisition. The requisition shall state the business to be transacted at the meeting and shall be sent to each director and to the registered office of the Corporation. Subject to the provisions of the Act, upon receipt of the requisition, the directors shall call a meeting of shareholders to transact the business stated in the requisition. If the directors do not within twenty-one days after receiving the requisition call a meeting, any registered or beneficial shareholder who signed the requisition may call the meeting."

Phil used this provision earlier this year and right now, Phil is the only individual with enough shares to call such a Special Meeting. He will have to petition the Yukon Supreme Court to have his requisition for a Special Meeting upheld [recall that IOC forced him to do this in May for the Special Meeting held in conjunction with the AGM]. If Phil chooses to go this route, the currend BOD could be replaced and the CEO could be removed without cause. Notice of the Special Meeting would need to be provided to all shareholders and directors, along with details of the reason for the Special Meeting between 21 and 50 days prior to the Special Meeting.

It will be interesting to see if Phil chooses this course of action to block IOC's seeming attempt to go through with the Exxon deal as it stands, albeit with a new fairness opinion.

[jft310]

They have smart lawyers and should be weighing all possibilites of each action .

[Putncalls]

If they had smart lawyers they wouldn't have driven into this ditch.

[oliver.gump]

If they had smart lawyers they wouldn't have driven into this ditch.

Actually, it was the shareholders being misled by the BOD and the Executive management team that voted to keep the BOD and essentially give them a free hand to sell the company. Phil and his team, (and myself independently) warned of the duplicity of the incumbent BOD and the management, but the shareholders made a choice and....

Phil and his team have managed to get the wheels back on the track, again, and they are still wanting a fair and equitable deal.

Your incessant blathering in the face of reality is reflecting your inner self.

[Stavros]

I suppose the current BOD could decide to protect themselves and vote to remove both Finlayson and Hession. Perhaps it's possible (maybe likely) that they were merely pawns and mislead all along?

[oliver.gump]

I suppose the current BOD could decide to protect themselves and vote to remove both Finlayson and Hession. Perhaps it's possible (maybe likely) that they were merely pawns and mislead all along?

That would be a very good start, and would certainly go a long way toward building bridges and begin the process of redemption for the remaining board members.

Hession and his entire executive team would have to go, along with the Findlayson.

Expecting the team that attempted to defraud the shareholders to suddenly find a springing well of altruism after a scary day in court, is a recipe to disaster. A new team is needed to make a new deal. The manipulators and obfuscators must go.

[Bobby]

This must be the first order of business
The court decision would also be solid foundation for beginning the clawback process..
Thanks to Phil for his efforts and leadership

[Putncalls]

Clawback!?? With a court order from the Yukon? MH and crew are still running the show. They will probably tell the appraisers to assume water drive.

[jft310]

Who says MH and crew will be on the job , Why not remove them ??

[Kaliboo]

Under the Bylaws of IOC, Directors may be removed in the following manner:

 Under Bylaws #2, Section 13. Removal. "Subject to the provisions of the Act, the shareholders of the Corporation may by ordinary resolution at a special meeting remove any director from office before the expiration of his or her term of office and may, subject to the provisions of the Act and Paragraph 11 of this by-law, elect any person in his or her stead for the remainder of the director's term."

Regarding the removal of an Officer [such as the CEO}, Under Bylaws #2, Section 32, Removal of Officers and Vacation of Office. "Subject to the articles, all officers, employees and agents, shall be subject to removal by resolution of the directors at any time, with or without cause."

Thus, a Special Meeting would need to be called for the purpose of 1] the removal of the Directors of IOC and 2] a vote to replace said directors with new directors for the remainder of the directors' terms. Once the new directors are in place, they can remove the CEO by resolutin and without cause.

In order for the shareholders to call such a Special Meeting, the provisions of Section 46 apply: Meeting on Requisition of Shareholders. "The registered holders or beneficial owners of not less than five percent (5%) of the issued shares of the Corporation that carry the right to vote at a meeting sought to be held may requisition the directors to call a meeting of shareholders for the purposes stated in the requisition. The requisition shall state the business to be transacted at the meeting and shall be sent to each director and to the registered office of the Corporation. Subject to the provisions of the Act, upon receipt of the requisition, the directors shall call a meeting of shareholders to transact the business stated in the requisition. If the directors do not within twenty-one days after receiving the requisition call a meeting, any registered or beneficial shareholder who signed the requisition may call the meeting."

Phil used this provision earlier this year and right now, Phil is the only individual with enough shares to call such a Special Meeting. He will have to petition the Yukon Supreme Court to have his requisition for a Special Meeting upheld [recall that IOC forced him to do this in May for the Special Meeting held in conjunction with the AGM]. If Phil chooses to go this route, the currend BOD could be replaced and the CEO could be removed without cause. Notice of the Special Meeting would need to be provided to all shareholders and directors, along with details of the reason for the Special Meeting between 21 and 50 days prior to the Special Meeting.

It will be interesting to see if Phil chooses this course of action to block IOC's seeming attempt to go through with the Exxon deal as it stands, albeit with a new fairness opinion.

  Thanks 2126 for the legal work!  Just a clarification.  Yes Phil alone (or his group) owns 5% or more and can take action to call a special meeting.  But so can any other alliance of shareholders who collectively own 5% or more of the common shares; correct?    So in rough figures that's somewhere near 2.5 million shares.  So let's say a few guys band together and want to try and build an alliance of 5% that will call the special meeting to remove the directors, replace them with new directors, and fire MH, and select others all in one meeting.  Can that all be done in one meeting?  Next question - what process would this group use to create the alliance?  I guess they could start out by posting on this site and other sites with info on how to join t their alliance?  When the special meeting is called, who has to make all th e arrangements and pay for the meeting?  IOC I presume?  Who runs the meeting?  The people we are intending to get rid of?

I would think after all of this, that it would not be that difficult to form an alliance.  This same alliance could also serve as a mustering point for voting No with Dissent if by some case we get saddled with another bad deal to vote on.

Kaliboo