This is a letter that I have written to Mr. Biglari out of desperation at getting no answer in previous letters.
Dear Mr. Biglari,
Having written letters in the past and received no response, I thought writing an email would be easier.
I would like to better understand your desire to create the dual share structure. I believe it is unecessary and is giving your opponents fodder to criticize you. It would appear that this is a bid for control. Similar to how you took cash from BH and transferred it to the Lion Fund as a means to buy BH shares without retiring the shares to treasury stock. I image the dollar value of BH that the Lion Fund owns is probably higher than the entire fund itself prior to being folded into BH. Am I wrong? I believe, as I am sure others do as well, that this was just another way to increase the number of shares you have voting authority over.
Same is true for this latest special proxy. I didn’t read anything in the proxy about how you would gain extra voting control by splitting the shares. All I read was a bunch of so called evidence of how this would create “shareholder value” and attract long term shareholders. No concrete evidence was given for this hypothesis. I will be very upset if you A) sell all your new B shares to purchase A shares, or B) only by A shares going forward. If either of these two occur, my theory on the real reasoning will be upheld.
What I am not sure that you realize is that you have control over the company. There is no need for more of these special proxies. We have all (shareholders) put you in place because you are doing a good job. You already have long term shareholders. Just look at your top three!