Ann: Notice Received Under Section 249D of the Corporations Act, page-134

G’day again Alex –
I refer you to an extract from your post above :
“Looks like the two directors aren't going to step down quietly….”

Another poster – Vitor - @9.50am today
https://hotcopper.com.au/search/search?type=post&users=Vitor
– asked about WW’s and HB’s ability to vote (with their holdings) at the EGM yet to be convened.

I’ve researched this question today – wondering if both these Directors would be legally precluded from voting (with their holdings) and found that Director/s - proposed to be removed by shareholders at an EGM of a Public Company (ASX-listed or not) – appear to have a choice of voting.
(i.e. only are they precluded from voting if a Resolution is on the Agenda for a BGS’ EGM whereby BGS wants to get into bed with another Co. and such Director/s have a financial interest in that other Company).

Verification – of the choice WW & HB have – in BGS’ case is found in the “Recommendation” para. @ the foot of P7 of the Ann to the ASX by MMR (MEC Resources) on 27 Jan. Such Ann was in the form of a Notice of General Meeting.
An extract from that para. reads:

“Mr Hock intends to exercise votes of shares in which he has a relevant interest against this resolution”. (i.e. Hock was named as a Director proposed to be removed
per 1 of the Resolutions for that EGM which was being convened to remove 3 other Directors as well!) This again illustrates what shareholders – as the owners of a Company - can do with Directors, whose performance they’re not happy with.

Probably Alex you’d be already informed about WW’s & HB’s intentions - in this regard - hence this post to inform most others who may not know. Rgds TG.