Ann: Chairman's Address, page-19

Yes - hang on indeed. Either the application to the takeovers panel was a fishing expedition - and note that the takeovers panel said that HAV didn't provide sufficient evidence for the panel to look further and today some HAV directors are saying that they were all surprised that Giles was going to vote no and claim they were ambushed by this suprise and sudden "no" vote on Monday night, and went to suspension on Tues to seek legal advice? Presumably the seeking of legal advice was an attempt to negate or disenfranchise the 38.51% Giles bloc of no votes? Or even an attempt to try to force Computershare to divulge the identity of the no votes that Computershare had on their records?

These guys stories change from day to day and seem to have a cavalier approach to keeping shareholders and market informed about the company.

Seems a bit disingenuous and petty to put all the blame on Giles for the failure of the deal given the very high vote for the negative in that count. It wasn't just Giles who had problems with the deal - it was a very substantial amount of the total shareholding of HAV....