Ann: Recapitalisation and AGM, page-91

I believe also that the unknown could be better than the known.

There is a risk in voting NO for certain. Currently that risk is a maximum of $0.039 per share.

There is also a risk in voting yes. All power will be given to the American lenders and they can do with the company as they like within the regulations.

Upside by voting NO could be a better deal with the American lenders. It could also be that the American lenders sell their debt and walk away. There are other upside scenarios also.

Upside by voting yes is hard to find. I guess it could be just a couple of cents per share and then see how we go from here.

My stand is clear. The American lenders have not given us all the information we should have been given before a vote. They should as a minimum have given us an update report of how SGH are going today (they have this information available). They should also be transparent in relation to the $1billion lawsuit of WTG. Instead they decided not to give us an update on SGH and they decided not to mention the WTG lawsuit as a material maybe. On top of that they decided to value SGH on history and not future earnings which normally would happen.

I think that is disrespectful to current shareholders and employees.

All in my opinion.

And now they beg for our votes?

I am voting AGAINST the American lenders proposal and AGAINST all SGH directors.

SWC