Looking at David Sanders appointed Non-Executive Chairman in a non executive position which to me presumes a short term position to try and protect against any counter challenge to the abrupt change of the previous new board elected. We've heard how he represented Soc in the Takeovers Panel which in the end taught us a lot on the back room workings to change the board and the counter change and on it goes.
It's interesting to see Mr Sanders also was made and interim chairman director on previous matter concerning the affairs of IFS Construction Services Limited and planted there in a sense to protect the then existing board. He objected to using all the shareholders proxy votes to oust the then existing board. The Takeovers Panel had another view. The Panel declared that the circumstances constitute unacceptable circumstances in relation to the affairs of IFS Construction Services Limited. Mr Sanders then resigned as chairman having no interest I running the company. I’ve attached the Panels hearing notes as a research tool for those interested.
The application concerned a meeting requisitioned pursuant to section 249D by the applicants seeking to replace the existing directors of IFS. At the meeting, Mr David Sanders (a lawyer and principal of Perth law firm Bennett + Co), a newly appointed director and "Interim Chairman for the purposes of Chairing the General Meeting of Shareholders" ….
My view of all of the unacceptable happenings that we as shareholders of Soc/4CE have been through ourselves, you can only come to the conclusion that the resources the company (4CE) has are either very valuable or perceived to be very valuable and can create great wealth in the right set of circumstances. Maybe our shares shouldn't be sold to be picked cheaply by accumulators as it is clear the shares and the ability to proxy vote are very important factors and maybe more valuable than we think. The new non executive directors with certain skills were elected very quickly and demonstrates to me to whole matter was orchestrated some time ago.
If we knew what we know now would we or could we we have all used our proxy votes to change the course or not. I'm pretty sure we would and could have made it interesting/relevant at least. Was the position we were placed in highly unreasonable and stressful for beyond the norm?
Is there a case here in some form and that is why these these quick changes occurred. Food for thought.
http://www.takeovers.gov.au/content/DisplayDoc.aspx?doc=media_releases/2012/058.htm
(20min delay)