Shareholders will be up in arms if he is still CEO next year he was listed as an "Interim" from around August of last year. On top of the additional BoD members they are looking for, a new CEO should also be under assessment. I cant imagine the voting will be any more favourable at the next AGM than it was the last on their current remuneration:
Refer 30/11/2023 at the AGM result.
A resounding 48% voted against the remuneration package proposed. While it passed it constituted a first strike against the board.
The board is currently walking on very very thin ice. If little has changed between now and next AGM I imagine strike 2, a re-election and cast out will occur so say bye bye to current board.
So in terms of there current activity and lack of communication it will only further solidify what is to come should they not roll up their sleeves so to speak:
Two strikes
TheCorporations Amendment (Improving Accountability on Director and Executive Remuneration) Act 2011amended toCorporations Acttostrengthen the accountability and transparency of Australia’s executive remuneration frameworkand give shareholders more power over the pay of company directors and executives by establishing the ‘two strikes’ rule. Therulemeans that boards face being spilled if they suffer shareholder votes of more than 25 per cent against their executive pay proposals at two consecutive company annual general meetings.
The ‘first strike’ occurs where a company’s remuneration report receives a ‘no’ vote of25 per cent or moreat its AGM (the first AGM) [section 250U]. Where this occurs, the company’s remuneration report put to the next year’s AGM must include an explanation of the board’s proposed action in response to the ‘no’ vote or an explanation of why no action has been taken [paragraph 300A(1)(g)].
The ‘second strike’ occurs where the company’s remuneration report to the next year’s AGM receives a ‘no’ vote of 25 per cent or more [section 250U].
In that case, shareholders will vote at that AGM to determine whether the directors will need to stand for re-election. If thisspill resolutionpasses with a majority of eligible votes cast, then a ‘spill’ meeting will take place within 90 days [section 250V]. A company will still need to provide the minimum notice period for holding a meeting, as required by theCorporations Act [section 250W]. A company will also need to comply with any minimum notice period set out in its constitution for the nomination of candidates for the board. This will ensure that shareholder nominated candidates can seek endorsement at the ‘spill’ meeting.
(20min delay)