Quote from: havelock on May 28, 2014, 11:47:43 AM

Quote from: jonsi on May 28, 2014, 11:39:44 AM

Quote from: havelock on May 28, 2014, 11:18:05 AM

We would like to inform you that a vote was cast for every change made by cryptx since they have been listed on Havelock. The votes were cast by unit holders that collectively own more than 60% of the Fund. If you did not get to vote on changes and you personally own over 5% of the Fund please contact us. Cryptx did not need to bring the vote to a public one when the majority of the unit holders of the Fund voted for those changes. So even if a public vote has taken place the same result would have been voted on.

So if you currently own more than 5% of the Fund and you were not contacted to cast a vote for a change please PM or email us at Funds@havelockinvestments.com

There was no breach of contract, all decisions were made by majority shareholders that were monitored by us prior to public release of decisions.

To take the vote public and get the same result would have been a waste of time and cause more confusion.

We believe that PETA is on the right track and has made the right choices to keep the company viable over the past year. If you do not agree with the decisions made by PETA we are always looking for great companies to list their Fund on Havelock apply today!

Havelock Investments

Havelock fail again at simple math. You said that the votes were cast by unit holders that collectively own more than 60% of the Fund and even if a public vote has taken place the same result would have been voted on. How come you reach this conclusion? All by yourself or the whole team of "experts"?

If a motion have passed with 65% - 35% the rest of voters (the reminder of 40% witch didn't vote) could easily change the outcome. So yes, it's a breach of contract, but don't expect havelock to do anything, they are happy with the fees they are getting, despite the fact that people (their clients) loose money.

Now are you going to delete this post where I explain simple math, like you did in the scriptX thread?

It was passed unanimously 60%-0%. But you knew that already since you voted, or did you?

Enough with accusations. The market was open for several days prior to this offering. If you wanted to sell your units you had plenty of time as the price was risng. If you still want to sell PM us and we will try to find you a buyer.

They are not accusations, they are facts!!! And the fact that you consider theam acusations, well... it speak for itself.
You say it was passed unanimously 60%-0%, but you couldn't know this in advance, and you agreed with this anyway (fact not accusation).
With this logic you can very well let only the biggest 60% shareholders from the first 60% biggest holders vote, and then the next biggest 60% and so on until it remains only 1 voter witch is the biggest share holder and the vote will pass or not pass with 100% - 0% and you can say the motion would passed anyway.

Again, I'm not acussing you, I'm just pointing to the facts you did, that is why I quote you. If I say anything that is not true please point to that! You pretend that you could have known in advance the outcome of the vote to claim that I'm making "accusations"?

-edit-
It doesn't matter that the market was open for several days prior to this offering. You can't just breach the terms of a contract and say "If you are not happy with it you can sell"
-edit-