Ann: Notice received under Section 249D of the Corporations Act, page-138

I'm going to entertain your thoughts for a minute ... let's say GK has secured enough votes and a whizz bang a spectacular new toy?

Do you seriously believe he has suddenly become pro-active for shareholders because he woke up one morning and decided to start giving a damn? Despite who these people are they've already, imo, instigated change in the current management team without a vote even being caste. Whether they are successful or not we should be thankful I believe at the attempts they are making to have the current team feel they need to be more accountable, or at least appear to be (lol suddenly a letter to shareholders ... review ..... gosh we have a new toy ) than they have in the past few years.

What did you do for two years? .... up-ramped; stumbled on a grant announcement that wasn't released to market, didn't share that info with all other holders and then only once you sold out did you come back here and start espousing how poor management were and how the Company is cooked for at least 2 years. This is simply about your ego and you wanting to gloat about current situation SH's find themselves in, the same holders that likely bought in on your 5-star recommendation. Shame on you @cfp and kudos to the 249'ers for trying to protect their investment as well as that of other SH's by being proactive and attempting to instigate change instead of being silent until they were safely out.

Finally, you spent two years saying how wonderful management were and with what ease you were able to make contact with them ... you suggested others do the same. Clearly you are far from competent in this area; so, when these people eventually put their bios up, and you start attacking (because it's a given you will) I suggest that people take that as perhaps a good reason to vote for them because it is very clear that your analytical skills and ability to pick a good management team has been severely lacking in the past.