"That will give all shareholders a chance to consider the situation, instead of seeing a smaller group of shareholders potentially ramming through a motion because they've organized enough votes to hijack the AGM."

Thanks for the precision Lar.

According to the applicable corporate law, all by-laws taken by the Board have to be approved by the shareholders at or before the next AGM. While legal, "immediate application by-laws" are in fact temporay in nature, and are not to be used as devices to indirectly serve the interests of the directors who happen to adopt them... It may be fully legal, but sometimes it may look dubious!

And my point is exactly that : protective by-laws such as this one may in fact be viewed as a way to 'besiege' the company, when organized by destabilized managers! Again, I think Frank Candido did a great job as CEO, but the drills were unfortunately modest in their result. Not his fault! But still, I find it sad to see well-paid managers sticking to the captain's cabin when the boat gets to the port empty!

I would have a different opinion if Frank Candido had put his house and pants to acquire shares, and kept them to this time. Which is not. When he would ask for a confidence vote, he would more easily get it!

Sorry for the negative mood, but at the present time, I see this By-law adoption more like a personal move than a shareholder-oriented strategy. Like it is now, I do not see much of a difference if a new group tries to 'hijack' the Company than if the old one tries to 'besiege' it !

GLTA.