Comments on: Teck’s top shareholder backs Glencore takeover

By: Bob Hall

Bob Hall — Mon, 17 Apr 2023 01:59:13 +0000

In reply to John Q Public. If China wants it - guarenteed it is not in Canadas interest.

By: John Q Public

John Q Public — Sat, 15 Apr 2023 15:43:35 +0000

CIC should sell their stake in Teck on the open market. There is a chance that CIC wants to J/V Teck’s Cu. assets with Glencore. What will happen to the Zn division, The Trail Smelter w/ indium,germanium,cadmium, Au. Ag.?
Glencore is a poor corporate citizen ,based on past history. CIC as a government entity isnt much better.
Leave Teck as a Canadian company.

By: Bob Hall

Bob Hall — Fri, 14 Apr 2023 21:20:27 +0000

Disclosure – I am a small investor so there is not millions at stake. I have always been proud of my ownership stake in Canadian miners. This move by Glencore fits their past SOP. Throw money. Domcile of the company does not matter. Keevill will kill this deal because he can. Having a Chinese shareholder supporting a take over should flash red lights all over. Take care of company business and then worry about ownership issues. I would like to see a move to limit (lower) Chinese and Russian ownership of shares in any Canadian resourse company.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 14 Apr 2023 20:33:25 +0000

TECK has two classes of common shares, A and B. The only difference in the two classes is that class A shares have 100 votes each and class B shares have 1 vote each. In the legal document that established the dual share classes it specifically states that in the event of a takeover that class B shares will receive equal compensation to class A shares.

TECK management has proposed that TECK be split into two companies. I have received a proxy statement to vote on several resolutions in an April 26 stockholders’ meeting which are designed to split TECK into a coal mining company and a copper mining company. But far more importantly from class B shareholders’ viewpoint the split would result in class A shares being worth significantly more than class B shares.

The plan to convert the class A shares to class B shares and the plan to split TECK into two companies are designed to have the class A shareholders receive more compensation per share than the class B shareholders. I urge all class B shareholders to vote against every resolution on the proxy.

If TECK management revises the terms of the split to where the class B shares would receive equal value to the class A shares then I would give serious consideration to voting for the split.

Again, I urge all my fellow class B shareholders to vote against every resolution on the proxy.