2 questions lodged at 2025 hybrid Pointsbet scheme meeting
June 26, 2025
Below is the text of the 2 written questions submitted at the 27 minute hybrid Pointsbet scheme meeting held in Melbourne on June 25, 2025 and via the Computershare platform, plus a summary of the answers and some video grabs via Twitter. No other shareholder asked any questions. The proxies were disclosed early with these formal addresses showing they scheme had been defeated by rival bidder BETR. However, BETR accidentally rescinded its proxy vote when logging into the meeting, as these voting results show. BETR quickly demanded a recount and then Pointsbet clarified the situation which headed back to court the next morning. Did these two Tweets on the voting process. Chanticleer summed up the farce well. Market cap was $396m on scheme meeting day. See ridiculous 22 questions lodged at 2021 AGM, 8 questions lodged at 2023 AGM and the 5 questions lodged at its June 2023 EGM.
Q1. The AFR's Rear Window column carried a piece last week criticising the fact that the MIXI scheme proposal brought forward the payment of $20m in incentive payments to a range of insiders. Could the chair comment on what he thought of the article, whether it was accurate and whether there is anything different in our situation compared with what happens with other scheme of arrangement takeovers.
Answer: the question wrangler gratuitously disclosed that owned just 53 shares and later claimed that some insider get to vote with accelerated vesting at scheme meeting. The chair Brett Paton pointed out there were 83 participants in the scheme and quite a few were due to vet this month so it was wrong to suggest the full $20 was being accelerated. Watch video of exchange via Twitter, plus these additional comments by the general counsel.
Q2. Thank you for disclosing the proxies early showing that the scheme is likely to be defeated. How did BlueBet/BETR manage to move so easily to acquire a blocking stake of 19.9%. Were there particular large institutional shareholders which delivered that leverage? Why did we proceed with this meeting when a 20% stake is always likely to defeat a scheme requiring 75% approval?
Answer: Chair Brett Paton declined to name the institutions which he said decided to take some risk off the table at $1.10 and then the general counsel defended proceeding with the meeting, saying it was a court-ordered process. Watch video of exchange via Twitter
Copyright © 2025 The Mayne Report. All rights reserved
