With respect to Biovail's corporate governance standards, the Concerned Shareholders believe that if elected Mr. Haggis and Mr. Potter would satisfy these requirements relating to "interlock" board memberships as, if elected, they would only serve on the Board of one other public company together.
Shareholder Democracy Concerns - Biovail's Position is Opposed to Proper Governance
Biovail has recently and irresponsibly claimed that the Concerned Shareholders have attempted to frustrate shareholder democracy at Biovail. This is further evidence of the Board's and management's poor judgment and misguided view of governance. Their claim flies in the face of governance principles and is simply untrue.
- The Concerned Shareholders have, unlike Biovail, afforded shareholders with the ultimate form of shareholder democracy with respect to the election of directors - the ability to vote for the eleven director nominees of their choice. - There are thirteen individuals being nominated in total for eleven places on the Board. The Concerned Shareholders are providing Biovail shareholders with the ability to choose the eleven of the thirteen nominees they feel are best suited to lead their company. - By limiting the form of proxy to eleven director nominees, as Biovail has done, the Concerned Shareholders would have frustrated a shareholders ability to elect the directors of their choice. This would have been patently unfair and against proper governance practices.
Unfortunately, a technical difficulty beyond the control of the Concerned Shareholders has caused the issue with respect to the unavailability of telephone and internet
|SOURCE Concerned Shareholders of Biovail|
Copyright©2009 PR Newswire.
All rights reserved