I think you are not understanding the point that people are trying to make here. There does NOT need to be a serious breach of duty or any non-performance of any kind in order for shareholders to remove directors. They can remove directors for any reason and that this reason does not need to be justified or even expressed. Shareholders can remove directors simply because "they feel like it" (i.e. they just want to give someone else a go). All it takes is a 50% vote against them. You just need the numbers.
In addition to this, shareholders can take legal action against directors if there is a perceived breach of their duties and/or acts of negligence. If found guilty shareholders can go after their personal assets (i.e. they are not protected by the company structure in the same way that normal employees are).
BTW: I think you are reading the text you quoted incorrectly (it doesn't help that you have removed the paragraph that separates these 2 sentences), but let me re-write the text you quoted to make things clear: "However, shareholders will have ultimate control over a company due to their power to vote for the appointment and removal of directors. In addition, if a director has committed a serious breach of their director’s duties, then shareholders can bring legal action against them."
At some point the extreme negativity will dissipate, options for a path forward will become clear and the price will rise.
PER Price at posting:
0.9¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)