bobs last post, page-46

Salty,

My point is that regardless of the usefulness of an adjournment (and my feelings towards that will remain my own), that Askin erred by failing to poll the attendees at the meeting when it was made clear by the attendees, as per the constitution of the company, that they wanted the matter raised.

Many more than 5 people at the meeting showed that they agreed with the idea of an adjournment.

And it is my understand that the Judge told Palmer that an adjournment was something that the shareholders could decide. Obviously, since it wasn't on the list of resolutions for the meeting, the Judge was of the understanding that it could be raised and polled at the meeting too - as per the constitution.

By failing to poll the shareholders Askin has opened the door to further litigation. He was told at the time that he could not fail to take a motion from the floor of the meeting, but did not accept that.

It is a shame that the chairman refused to follow his own constitution at the meeting he ran.