healthy bonus of $126,000 for hr!, page-12

desmondc,

Al you will need is 5% of the total shares on issue and/or 100 shareholders to force the Company to call an EGM.

And yes, to get rid of someone on the Board or anything relevant to the call of the EGM for that matter, you will need to get at least 50% plus one shares of the total votes. Not the total of the issued shares.

As for the top twenty shareholders supporting that move, IMO it depends entirely on who the top twenty are. If they are nominees accounts, I believe that they won't support anything let alone the call of an EGM. But the ones that are held privately or in companies held by Idividuals, may do so. After all the ones that started the whole thing going in the MPO's case, were some individuals.


hop,

As you would have noticed, (although I hold quite a few QMN shares), I don't post very much in these threads. Not enough hours in the day, simple as that.

My comments have been based purely on what someone asked.

If there are concerns about the way a Company has been run, and the concerns aren't addressed by the Company's Board and Management, and have a habit to fall in deaf ears or swept under the carpet, then there is a solution for all this. And that is that Shareholders have the rights to force a company into calling an EGM where they have to explain their doings and can be held accountable for their actions on what they have been doing.

If someone will make them aware that there could be a possibility of that being done, I am sure that they would change their stance, and will immediatley go and see if they can gather the support they needed to fend off such an action. For, failing in doing so, they would know that their days could be counted.

Hop, If you want a question from me to put forward to HR and DU, although I haven't been following these threads, the one that I would ask, is as to why HR is charging the Company for rent and his work separately and on top of what he is getting paid for his position.

As an Accountant myself, I would see that as a conflict of interest, and it should not have been allowed in the first place. Double dipping is not very well accepted, and undoubtedly it will creates reasons for speculations.

IMO we are running an Independent Company and it should be run as such. And that is totally separate from one's self interest.

I feel sure, that what we are paying to HR, (if what has been written in these threads is correct), would be quite adequate to pay someone else, and none of these comments and speculations would need to arise.

KEEP IT SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENTLY.

That is the question that you can put forward if you wish. And let's see what they have to say in reply.

Buddy