Z Energy in reverse on ‘virtual’ meetings
Lobbying from ‘‘mum and dad’’ shareholders has led Z Energy to drop its plans to hold an entirely ‘‘virtual’’ annual general meeting (AGM).
In March Z Energy announced plans to hold its AGM entirely online, meaning shareholders could not physically attend.
The decision followed a poor turnout to its last annual meeting. Despite the 2016 meeting coming just a month after Z Energy was granted clearance to buy Caltex, with the event held in Te Papa on a sunny Wellington afternoon, only 19 shareholders turned up.
But the decision quickly met resistance.
Michael Midgley, chief executive of the New Zealand Shareholders Association, accused Z Energy of being ‘‘out of step’’ with other listed companies.
He was concerned the virtual meeting would deny shareholders the chance to ‘‘eyeball’’ directors.
The criticism prompted a rethink from Z Energy, which has now reverted to a ‘‘hybrid’’ meeting. As well as watching the Wellington meeting, asking questions and voting online, shareholders will be able to attend in person.
Peter Griffiths, Z Energy’s chairman, wrote to Midgley this week, confirming the change.
‘‘In the spirit of listening, we have taken your feedback on board and will come up with a solution that enables widespread virtual participation as well as the opportunity for those that wish to attend in person – effectively an internetbased meeting with a studio audience.’’
Z Energy spokesman Jonathan Hill said while it was not a major topic during a recent retail investor roadshow, the NZ Shareholders Association was not the only one to take issue.
‘‘We never wanted to be in a position where we were shutting the door on people,’’ Hill said.
It was ‘‘impossible to know’’ how many shareholders would ultimately turn up to the meeting, but the company would do its best to cater for whoever did attend.
Midgley said the hybrid meeting ‘‘would enable all shareholders to engage and vote in whatever way was comfortable for them’’.
Z Energy’s move ‘‘was a clear example of how shareholders needed to make their opinions heard if they were to maintain effective oversight of their investments’’.