Ann: Requisition of Meeting under Section 249D, page-52

FC were an underwriter So they didnt take up their rights - they got them via the underwrite - at least half a dozen shareholders did this. I have no time for RM and the financing method they used but I'm getting sick of people extending and falsely accusing FC of not doing the one thing FC has always done which is provide money to support ADO for a decade. It ended up costing me a fortune and I would never have agreed to participate myself if I had known the financing method being used by FC but please stop talking about them not supporting the CR or creating a shortfall and the loan shares in the same sentence - there would be no loan shares if FC didn't participate in the fundraising for the DIA acquisition.

I'm not sure whether you popped up as one of the Noblemen for AS but you are being misinformed and it's time to see the future for what it is - trying to take effective control of a company with about 30-80m shares just won't work in the long run - that was obvious by the surprising quantum of the vote at the AGM.

Just looking at the shareholdings in the AR and the way the AGM went tells me the EGM vote will be at least 250m+ for removing the directors and about 30-80m against. This time around I suspect they wont even get the honourable vote from GC supporting his fellow directors after he didnt get the courtesy of the same response from the AS supporters. The house is being cleaned out by the majority of shareholders and there is nothing that can be done about it - thats the way the system works.

It's also not hard to imagine what a future Board would most likely look like - GC , MS , new MD , + 1 science or battery type , +1 governance/finance type. There seems to be little value in the short term of having 2 x overseas directors now for the direction ADO is apparently going. (Note to self - don't mention an example of a company where it makes sense to have increasing overseas directors because of the strategic direction as it will be construed as cross promotion).

I think the finance/governance type should have been AS but the shareholders have voted and he isn't. Which staff member thought he should be there or not and made speeches to that effect is irrelevant as a BOD are shareholder representatives - before I read about JM also being a shareholder - well where are his shares then? JM had 12.5m shares in 2015 and didn't make the reporting threshold in 2016 of 6.9m shares so where did his go? Blame FC for a stupid funding choice but JM either sold (on or off market) or used the same thing and his shares were sitting up in the BNP Noms holdings as well - they are the only 2 viable options I can see.

Democracy at work often upsets as many as 49% of people - in this case, judging by the tone of the AGM vote, it will be as few as 5% but they make the noise of 49% I am sure . . .