AGM Date Irregularity?

[jEEva]

I believe these were the past AGM dates:

3/24/2010
3/22/2011
3/27/2012
4/16/2013

The one that stands out as breaking the pattern is the upcoming one on 4/16/2013. It is just a date, but it must have been chosen for a reason. All the prior years I could find were in March, and now this is in April, and about 3 weeks later than usual. May mean nothing, but it is different for no apparent reason.

[jEEva]

One pattern remains - the AGM usually falls on a Tuesday.

3/24/2010 Wednesday
3/22/2011 Tuesday
3/27/2012 Tuesday
4/16/2013 Tuesday

[B R Gray]

Not necessarily meaningful. It could have been delayed for all sorts of reasons like key players having other obligations.

[Technopete]

That would be a good question to ask at the AGM!  Is there a register of questions we want to ask?

Regards,

TP

[ee-tom]

I'm not sure if we know the dates of EEstor quarterly reports. But it could be the AGM is delayed to allow one more such report with possible new material developments (which can be released by Zenn whether or not they are by EEStor, though in practice EEstor would want to do the release)?

On the same subject, could the latest rather half-baked EEstor PR be mandated by a quarterly report to Zenn? The point is that any development that is material for Zenn that EEstor makes:

(1) must be communicated in the next quarterly report

(2) Can be released by Zenn if EEstor does not release it

(3) Can be subject of DD by Zenn if EEstor does release it.

[Technopete]

Does the following have any bearing on the AGM date?

Implementing new Canadian "notice-and-access" rules for electronic ...

The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) recently published final amendmentsto National Instrument 54-101 Communication with Beneficial Owners of Securities of a Reporting Issuer (NI 54-101) that give reporting issuers and others the option to use the “notice-and-access” method to post proxy-related materials on a website (in addition to SEDAR) instead of having to mail materials to registered holders (under National Instrument 51-102 Continuous Disclosure Obligations (NI 51-102) and to beneficial owners (under NI 54-101). Under NI 51-102, notice-and-access may also be used to post annual financial statements and management discussion & analysis (MD&A ) in lieu of sending such documents to all securityholders.

A Canadian accountant might be able to make sense of it.

Regards,

TP

[ee-tom]

(1) Would a significant improvement in EEstor layer test results be regarded by Zenn as a "material development"?

(2) Would any such test results necessarily be reported quarterly to Zenn under the new TA?

(3) Would Zenn therefore be obliged to ensure that any such increase was published?

(4) (if not answered at AGM) Has Zenn conducted any additional due diligence on the January EEstor PR as is allowed under section blah.blah of the new TA?

[Technopete]

The EEStor 2008 patent specs used to be published in the Zenn quarterly documents, so that sets the benchmark of what shareholders should expect,subject to the normal future predictions caveats.  And there are figures in the TA.  The fact that some people don't believe the figures in these documents surely doesn't create an obligation to report improvements on 74 Wh/l.  

The public position of Zenn is that they expect EEStor to deliver to these specs, so a gradual creep up to them is not material, but is to be expected.  However, meeting a Zenn milestone would be material.

Regards,

TP

[ee-tom]

I don't think that can be true now TP because the tested parameters of the EEstor material are significantly different (higher k, lower V, larger thickness) than those envisaged in the patent. That clears expectations. But it remains not clear to me what would be considered material. I think probably any significant increase in ED, or reduction in leakage, since both affect possible Zenn markets.

Technopete said:

The EEStor 2008 patent specs used to be published in the Zenn quarterly documents, so that sets the benchmark of what shareholders should expect,subject to the normal future predictions caveats.  And there are figures in the TA.  The fact that some people don't believe the figures in these documents surely doesn't create an obligation to report improvements on 74 Wh/l.  

The public position of Zenn is that they expect EEStor to deliver to these specs, so a gradual creep up to them is not material, but is to be expected.  However, meeting a Zenn milestone would be material.

Regards,

TP

[student]

Continued progress of sufficient magnitude is material to ZMC. Improving X to X*1.01 might not be. EEStor should be expected to adhere to the spirit of disclosure as outlined in the TA--and has made noises to that end, via B.

To test for materiality, simply ask what will make people more or less likely to purchase or sell ZNN, or accept a lower price in a sale or willing to pay more in a purchase.

To conserve cash, ZMC may limit exercising its auditing rights to an annual and significant event basis, or something similar. I don't expect ZMC to waste cash on this every quarter, given its cash situation.

[student]

Update on materiality:

It seems the Supreme Court of Canada has provided guidance (Sharbern Holding Inc. v. Vancouver Airport Centre Ltd.). Material information need not change an investor's decision. To be considered material, it merely needs to have a substantial likelihood of having actual significance in an reasonable investor's deliberations.