appointment of 2 directors, page-44

Because they are "non-executive", I would imagine they have very little to do with day-to-day operations(by definition). And they really are only their for bigger decisions at board level. Hence "stacking" the board.

They use the term "independent" to give disgruntled holders a real alternative. Vote Frank out. Vote trevor out. Vote these guys in.

I'd say they've made the IG task just a little bit harder by providing an alternative and directing proxies accordingly.

But worst case, the IG has been instrumental in changes at many levels. Better communicaation. Now highly credentialled appointments. Etc. Job done to an extent. I'm certainly greatfull.

Best case scenario, the game isn't over and one or both of the IG candidates find a seat on board. Or an ace. Possibly a compromise.

I know from previous companies I've held with 249D proceedings, that about 30% end up withdrawn. Usually with a compromise.

As for the 249D requiring an assosciation and therefor a form 603, I think technically they are right. Form 603 and 604 has space specifically for change in sub as a result of assosciation rather than acquiring.

But, in all my research, I haven't actually found a company that has a 249D followed by a form 603. And I found several examples of 249D that were by multiple holders to get the 5% required. If it was a requirement then all are in breach lol.