Polecam, I'll try to respond to your post by way of picking through your points . My response is highlighted in YELLOW . I encourage everyone to put their views forward....but my views generally in the wider world is "Don't sensor things you don't agree with ....... but oppose it ". I get the sense you are trying to drum up a movement not just to unseat the Executive Chairman but also upset the whole apple cart at a time when we are well into the pointy end of this process where stability amongst our decision making and negotiating group is critical. I am not sure why you would want chaos right now by stirring the pot using some statements that are based on pure fantasy and guesswork. I respect anyone taking the time to share their opinions but opinions have consequences. So I highly encourage careful consideration of all the known facts, ask questions and continue to look after your interests
So, that said, in response to your post: You said :
As at today, PL4 finally proved the tech, but we apparently still have some practical steps needed. See NEXT STEPS under the Technology tab.
Yes, it is really great news but not really unexpected ! and YES it would have been nice to hear this in a statement from the company rather that have it just appear on the website.
So we are heading to an AGM, with a couple of contentious motions1. Inclusion of DM and Howard in bonus pool. Why? Why are you asking Why? DM is already in the bonus pool, and is just asking to have that percentage lifted commensurate with the new position he holds as Executive Chairman. Can't comment re Digby ...... a good question for AGM. I would want to know why he deserves it ...... I don't really have a good fix on his role...... but I will NOW find out before I vote.
2. Approval for 25% issue, (this is an increase to 25% from 'i think' already approved 17%) when we don't need funds (still to be determined) and DM said no more CR'sWell after screaming VOTE NO, reading the updated website I am thinking slightly different.MY GUESSIMEC has told us (maybefeedback) we still have more to do (see next steps on website). IMEC is unable/ doesn't / can't facilitate completion of these steps.(How do you know this exactly ?) IMEC has introduced interested parties.(how do you know this ) Interested parties want a significant / controlling stake (hence the 25% placement motion) (pure speculation). New partner will require board representation and likely appoint their owner than just have before it appear on the websirn CEODM sidelined (subject to local ASX requirements), hence DM and Howard want inside bonus pool to secure / gaurantee a payday/ redundancy.( WOW..... incredible speculation based on previous speculation). (There are many reasons why Boards from MANY companies have these 'rights' to issue shares without shareholder approval built in. Some of these reasons have been discussed already including the ability to move/react quickly to market conditions, and also as a form of protection against a hostile takeover. It doesn't mean they will do it. Just remember the BOD have to 'by law' act in the best interests of shareholders. I see nothing wrong with the request. I think it is unhelpful to make unsubstantiated "guesses" (your own words). Maybe ask the question at the AGM before you vote NO or find out before and stop trying to drum up support against the company using guesses as your basis for voting that way. That harms everyone !!
Are we heading for a partner, hopefully taking a placement at a record high placement price? (Who knows ? but that is NOT the stated objective of the company) Why a placement ? Why not just sell the company like they intend and the buyer will develop further with all the incredible resources they have at their disposal. That placement will secure and underwrite the future, DM and co will still push for a buyout at 55C US plus. Why this figure ? more speculation ! There is nobody left to take this forward within 4DS, (how to you come to this conclusion?) either we sell "as is where is" or we partner with someone to finish the job, IMEC or another. So, I still will vote NO to DM (sack him) due to his failure to perform, communicate and respect shareholders.
(Can you tell me in more detail exactly how DM has failed? I also, am not happy about the lack of communication with shareholders, but I am also well aware that this is by design to protect our interests. You, myself and likely most people on this forum are not experts in commercialising a ground breaking and highly secretive suite of IP.) What this 'Tiny' company has achieved is astonishing. This has partly been overseen by DM along the way. The company is financially healthy and well positioned to move forward into commercialisation again very much because of DM's ability to raise funds. We have achieved what the giants of the tech industry have failed to achieve and with a 'tiny' team and 'tiny' budget. Commercialisation is still the goal. We don't know what stage these discussions are at and there is no point guessing.
Inspite of this, we own shares on a generational disruptive tech, that is worth $ not c's.My guess, a placement with a partner (why the 25% motion) that will take control.
I would caution readers to think really long and hard about reasons to vote YES or NO to the proposals. There appears to be way too much guesswork by some in trying to determine the motives of the BOD. Ask the questions folks and base you votes on the answers you receive. Companies seeking to buy our IP, would be rubbing their hands in delight to see a BOD that are not supported by the shareholders. It weakens the mandate of our negotiating team in the eyes of the buyers. Don't let them smell weakness, only strength. Remember, our BOD has spent 10 years building to this point . Our BOD and ex board members like JD, and Wilbert have a lot of skin in the game. In my view DM having a bigger slice of the bonus pool and being head of the negotiating team is more likely to be a positive thing for shareholders. Personally I don't care how many millions DM receives if pay day arrives....... as long as we get our pay day as well. There is currently NO REASON for me to doubt the BOD have our best interests in mind and will be seeking the best possible outcome for everyone. It is their legal duty to shareholders and also in their best interests as well.
Expand
......... as usual writing on the fly !
(20min delay)