Article: Woolworths boycott backed by shareholders

marine1 said:
Lol Woolies surely are not getting negative publicity by being targeted by these idiots.
Click to expand...
As much as I hate to agree with you, I agree.
This will not stop most ordinary people * from buying at wollies. My guess is that my local woollies will still have long queues this afternoon, like most afternoons before and most afternoons ahead.

* Non-fanatics who have better things to do (like e.g. work) than stage protest actions against tomatoes in suburbia.

I have no beef with them, but don't mess with my shopping time or face the full wrath of my trolley :mad:
 
Paul Hjul said:
and for what it is worth Delaware is such a corporate centre globally because it has such strong protections for minority shareholders and the chancery structure allows shareholders a great deal of protection and division from management generally
Click to expand...

Funny that, I saw Delaware as a strong corporate centre precisely because it favours the board over the shareholder :)
 
grantza said:
therein lies the rub

anyone holding shares (even one) in a jse listed company is entitled to attend the agm of the company.
so they are not a group holding large volumes of shares & wielding influence of any sort, they simply bought a share or two - as an entrance ticket to the agm

equally, one can buy a share or two in telkom sa, & thus be entitled to attend the agm and raise concerns
Click to expand...

Shareholder activists, not true shareholders
 
Rusty0 said:
I agree.
Even if marine and his pitbull decides to throw all their money at Woolworths it will be in vain.
Negative publicity breeds negative publicity.
Click to expand...

Ah but the negative publicity for BDS and Muslims have been far worse.

If people are changing their shopping habits its because they want to avoid getting caught up in protest activity/shenanigans

If your car gets pelted by stones from people protesting on the N2 do you blame the DA or do you blame the protesters ?


Here is the statement from BDS:
Why boycott Woolworths over other retailers: Similar to the 1980s anti-apartheid movement, the BDS movement selects campaigns after careful analysis and strategic considerations. Several retailers in South Africa have some sort of trade relationship with Israel. We can try to boycott all of them but this is a daunting task that has a slim chance of having a concrete impact. Thus we focus our campaigns and move from one target to another as we reach our goals. Selecting Woolworths, for example, does not mean that other South African supermarkets do not stock Israeli products.
Part of the reason for campaigning and calling on Woolworths to end their Israeli trade relations is because Woolworths tries to sell itself as an “ethical company”. Surely the ethics that Woolworths claims to support include not trading with companies of a country like Israel that routinely abuses human rights? We are calling on Woolworths to respect the Palestinian boycott of Israel, take the lead and end its trade relations with Israel and set an example for other South African retailers.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see how any other retailer in SA is not selling themselves as ethical companies.

Have any of them changed anything since the Woolies boycott ?
 
IzZzy said:
Except the right to attend and vote at the AGM, which is all they need. Except that they will in all likelihood attempt to raise issues not on the agenda - which they cannot do unless certain exceptions are met.
Click to expand...

Good, but their vote will always be outnumbered by the majority share holders. Unless they vote with the majority ofc. Which in this case it's not.
 
bokdrol said:
As much as I hate to agree with you, I agree.
This will not stop most ordinary people * from buying at wollies. My guess is that my local woollies will still have long queues this afternoon, like most afternoons before and most afternoons ahead.

* Non-fanatics who have better things to do (like e.g. work) than stage protest actions against tomatoes in suburbia.

I have no beef with them, but don't mess with my shopping time or face the full wrath of my trolley :mad:
Click to expand...

I still stand in long queues with Muslim customers to be served by Muslim till operators.

Its clear that BDS really don't represent many people.
 
eehellfire said:
Shareholder activists, not true shareholders
Click to expand...

All shareholders are by default activists - if they weren't, shares wouldn't generally carry a vote. Shareholder activism as a concept seems to focus only on decisions taken or sought to be taken at a political level as opposed to corporate decisions but that's not entirely correct. When shareholders vote out directors, that is itself activism.
 
IzZzy said:
Funny that, I saw Delaware as a strong corporate centre precisely because it favours the board over the shareholder :)
Click to expand...

nope board over management and board over "hold out" - not the same thing as efficient judicial protection for shareholders through chancery

individual shareholder's share interest over board policy making and a right to demand security for satisfaction of fiduciary responsibility


edited to add:
a little dated and I don't have an open access link but it sets it out quite nicely: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/wasbur40&div=23&id=&page=

Granted there is a lot of perception more than law that comes into play but in general an LLC in Delaware vs an LLC in Nevada are different animals with the passive non-managing member of a Delaware limited liability corporation having a greater ability to demand parity until purchase in contrast to a Nevada corporation similarly incorporated
 
Last edited:
Pitbull said:
If I owned a voting amount of shares I would never support any action against my investment which would affect it negatively. It would directly affect my returns.
Click to expand...

It is called morals.

Not everyone places money above right or wrong.
 
Paul Hjul said:
nope board over management and board over "hold out" - not the same thing as efficient judicial protection for shareholders through chancery

individual shareholder's share interest over board policy making and a right to demand security for satisfaction of fiduciary responsibility
Click to expand...

Even though this is OT - I have never disagreed whole-heartedly with a position taken as strongly as your suggestion Paul.

There can be no other jurisdicton in the world that favours the boards power over shareholders than that of Delaware.

The formation and legislative inclusion of the BJR and the inclusion of section 102(b)(7) of the Delaware General Corporation Law following the opinion in the Van Gorkom case, whereby directors are given a mechanism to escape personal liability for breaches of fiduciary duties - means that the heart of corporate accountability on the part of the board is completely eroded.

Fiduciary duties is practically dead in Delaware :)

Nothing can compare to whatever purported minority rights exist in Delaware - of which there are not that many in any event.
 
Why does Woolies still stock a majority of halal meat if the muslims are boycotting ?

Perhaps this is an opportunity for halal foods to be replaced with a non-halal option.

I don't see why I am forced to buy halal goods when 99% of shoppers at the local WW are not muslim.
 
Nerfherder said:
Ah but the negative publicity for BDS and Muslims have been far worse.

If people are changing their shopping habits its because they want to avoid getting caught up in protest activity/shenanigans

If your car gets pelted by stones from people protesting on the N2 do you blame the DA or do you blame the protesters ?


Here is the statement from BDS:


I'd like to see how any other retailer in SA is not selling themselves as ethical companies.

Have any of them changed anything since the Woolies boycott ?
Click to expand...

I disagree.
I never heard of BDS before this. I like their stance on the subject however their methods needs work. But they are "learning" which is important.

I think you seeing the protest from a very very minute view.
This boycott started in July as far as I know, its now December and its still making headlines. The longer this boycott lasts, the more popular BDS gets.
 
Rusty0 said:
I disagree.
I never heard of BDS before this. I like their stance on the subject however their methods needs work. But they are "learning" which is important.

I think you seeing the protest from a very very minute view.
This boycott started in July as far as I know, its now December and its still making headlines. The longer this boycott lasts, the more popular BDS gets.
Click to expand...

O like ISIS and ISIL?

We need all the rats to come out of their holes before we plug the holes ;)
 
IzZzy said:
The formation and legislative inclusion of the BJR and the inclusion of section 102(b)(7) of the Delaware General Corporation Law following the opinion in the Van Gorkom case, whereby directors are given a mechanism to escape personal liability for breaches of fiduciary duties - means that the heart of corporate accountability on the part of the board is completely eroded.

Fiduciary duties is practically dead in Delaware :)

Nothing can compare to whatever purported minority rights exist in Delaware - of which there are not that many in any event.
Click to expand...
federal encroachment - and the reason for my "perception" qualifier
also remember the right to demand security for satisfaction still remains - which is probably the greatest enforcer of fiduciary responsibility

But yes it is largely OT but I am intrigued ...
 
Rusty0 said:
I disagree.
I never heard of BDS before this. I like their stance on the subject however their methods needs work. But they are "learning" which is important.

I think you seeing the protest from a very very minute view.
This boycott started in July as far as I know, its now December and its still making headlines. The longer this boycott lasts, the more popular BDS gets.
Click to expand...

I don't see them learning... they seem to be fumbling more and more.

Headlines are not a measure of success.

The other thing I forgot to mention earlier.... they have made friends with organisations like COSAS with very different objectives. This has been to their detriment.
The pigs head incident was just a hint at how ugly this will get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X