potential breaches of fiduciary duties, page-13

Without bothering to look up the details, it seems to me that it relates to the forthcoming 2013 annual meeting proposal to amend the 2007 incentive plan by increasing the number of shares by 3,000,000. So it quite current and the current board would be liable.

Must be a busy law firm with 756 cases listed on their website, not including the Biota case - which doesn't appear. Maybe they are waiting to see how many people click through to visit their site.

Seem to be ambitious, too, taking on the likes of Oracle and Amazon. Or at least they seem to be waiting for their first litigant to contact them on those cases!

I would rate this law firm as low life. But as cgt says, any publicity is (or may be) good publicity. And it has raised my awareness of item 4.

And also item 2, ratifying PwC as auditor, which seemingly is of no importance. However, this week I have noticed that PwC has given obviously incorrect advice to Gina Rinehart about capital gains tax liability of her children's trust fund, and also was unable to detect corruption at Leighton's when faced to incontrovertible evidence of such.

Makes me think I should vote down item 2 as well as item 4. I certainly don't want an auditor that, it would appear from Rinehart and Leighton, seems to tailor advice to what the client wants to hear, and not what they should be doing.