Directors, page-5

1. If you voted No at past AGMs to the issue of these options and rights, when in fact the overwhelming majority voted in favour of issuing them (eyes wide open) does that makes you right and the majority of other shareholders wrong?
2. If you had no right (non shareholder) to previously vote on the issue of these options and rights but are coming in after the fact to tell shareholders why they should have voted no, then why are you in any position to educate shareholders about corporate governance or the corporations act?
3. Options and rights aren’t in the money and therefore worthless unless their hurdles are met. If the directors don’t delivery for shareholders, then they get near enough to didly squat. That big spreadsheet goes to zero if they don’t deliver within the options and rights timeframes. I love a good well considered argument about nothing.
4. Shareholders can also vote directors out at the next AGM if they don’t like how the company is being run.

All this reminds me of a losing side pointing to all the reasons as to why they should have won, whether it be in sports, politics or business without ever accepting why they lost. If you read the conditions attached to the rights issued to the new Chair you’ll find it will be subject to shareholder approval. The time will come soon enough when shareholders can vote either yes or no to the issue of the latest performance rights issue.
What are win it would be for corporate governance if shareholders overwhelmingly voted NO to this resolution!
Will the NO voters then come out and decree why a new Chair was lost and the share price has fallen? Smells like a lose-lose scenario to me, but someone will tell me we’d all be better off if Kairos was the ASX small cap gold standard for corporate governance.