Parisot-Potter, Massy conflict heading to court

Former Massy executive, Angelique Parisot-Potter

(Trinidad Guardian) The conflict between Massy Holdings Ltd and its former executive vice president, Angélique Parisot-Potter, could be heading to the courts.

In a letter dated September 20 (last Friday morning), to Massy’s board of directors and T&T’s securities regulators, Parisot-Potter said on July 31, 2024, she submitted a shareholder proposal for governance reforms in accordance with the Companies Act.

Her proposal advocates the removal of Robert Riley as the chairman of Massy and a call for increased transparency regarding consultant expenditures, the Delphi programme, the NiQuan Debt, Nudge accounts and board and executive compensation.

She also wants Massy to implement the rotation of its external auditors to align with best practices.

She is insisting that Massy should include her shareholder proposal in its management proxy circular, which is circulated to shareholders before annual meetings to give them the necessary information to make informed choices.

Parisot-Potter said T&T’s Companies Act mandates the inclusion of shareholder proposals in management proxy circulars unless a valid reason for omission is provided within ten days of submission. That ten-day deadline ended mid August.

Last Friday afternoon, Massy responded to Parisot-Potter’s letter of July 31, saying it “respectfully refuses to include same in its management proxy circular.”

In its response, which was distributed on the letterhead of a Port-of-Spain law firm, Massy said among the reasons for refusing to put Parisot-Potter’s proposal in the management proxy circular is that her “conduct written communication to the company and/or its board of directors, and your public utterances, all collectively evidence a personal campaign against the company subsequent to your resignation.”

Massy also argued that it was the best judgment of the company’s directors that the shareholder proposal “is inimical to the commercial interest of the company and its stakeholders….”

Section 122 of the Companies Act states, “the Court may restrain the holding of the meeting to which the proposal is sought to be presented and make any further order it thinks fit.”