By Brian Robins
Lashing the board for its "appalling" behaviour in the "destructive campaign run by directors" of Hunter Hall Global Value to protect their fees, Wilson Asset Management chairman Geoff Wilson failed in his campaign to unseat the board - although he did succeed in removing the chairman.
At a meeting of shareholders of the $300 million fund, Mr Wilson succeeded in removing the chairman, Mr Paul Jensen but failed in replacing two other directors. Even though proxies for the three incumbent directors was broadly the same, the vote on the floor of the meeting moved against Mr Jensen.
Geoff Wilson's WAM failed in his bid to replace the board of Hunter Hall Global Value.Credit: Daniel Munoz
The outcome was 52.4 per cent of the votes cast opposed Mr Jensen continuing as a director with 10 per cent of the capital abstaining from participating in this vote.
Mr Wilson has been jousting with the board of the fund since news broke late last year that Peter Hall, the founder of Hunter Hall International, which manages the fund, was planning to quit the group he founded. Mr Hall sold his stake to Washington H. Soul Pattinson and Co, selling his initial block of shares at just $1 a share when they were fetching close to $4 in the sharemarket.
With only around $1 billion in funds under management, the publicly listed Hunter Hall Global Value is a key revenue source for Hunter Hall International. During the row with Mr Wilson, Soul Pattinson in particular has invested heavily in the listed fund to prevent Mr Wilson from holding sway over the board, emerging with a 12.6 per cent shareholding, costing more than $30 million.
"Shareholders have endured a destructive campaign run by tdirectors to protect their fees," Mr Wilson told Thursday's meeting. "I believe the behaviour of this board has been appalling."
Mr Wilson sought the removal of David Groves, Julian Constable and Paul Jensen with his own nominees, Kym Evans, Glenn Burge and Emma Davidson. In each vote, the incumbent board had the support of around 55 per cent of the shares voted, easily surviving the spill motions.
However in the vote for Mr Jensen, even though proxies ran 54.5 per cent in his favour, taking into account the votes cast at the meeting, the balance moved against him with 52.3 per cent of the overall votes cast in favour of his removal.
"It's not a victory," Mr Wilson said of the removal of Mr Jensen as the chairman. "It is unfortunate we had to call the meeting at all - it's a cost to the company and its shareholders."
Mr Wilson said the outcome was a "big protest vote for how the board has treated shareholders".
Speaking after the meeting, Mr Groves defended Mr Jensen, saying he had always acted in shareholder's best interests, although following the meeting the process has now commenced to find an independent director to replace the outgoing chairman.