$1.50 soon, page-12

I agree with the comments regarding removing the board and MBO participants.
The difficulty is in mustering sufficient shares collectively in order to put a motion to the company which they must table and put to the shareholder vote. Notwithstanding the details of holding and time requirements, the option certainly exists and management are bound under law to act accordingly where the requirements are met.
Regarding the recent Valad announcement, this indicated the MBO had been withdrawn. This is different from the case had the MBO been rejected since 'withdrawn' indicates the MBO consortium ceased pursuing the case, whereas 'rejected' indicates Valad said 'No'. Further we are left with the process whereby Salwin is 'negotiating' Hurley's future. Unfortunately then the annoucement does not fully indicate Valad actually took (or is taking) any decisive action on the MBO issue, and the likelihood remains in my opinion that we might indeed be hearing more in the weeks to come. As a result I will again seek clarification from Valad as to what is exactly going on and who pulled the MBO negotitations. The fact that some 4m stocks changed hands today was further surprising, and my hope at least this was the action of holders interested only in st gains as a result of a successful MBO rather indicative of the company's position.
Going back to the original issue regarding removing the board, this is actually in my opinion a possible option. However this requires sufficient shareholdings not only to lodge paperwork, but also importantly to gauge the possibility of success. The news comments recently by Simon Marais indicate his displeasure with the current board as do those by Barry Wynne (who started Valad some years back).
At the least it would be important to estimate what percentage of shares are held by individuals dissatisfied with the board/CEO - I currently hold a little over 100k (or some 0.1%) and if sufficient number of holders with similar or greater holdings were to indicate their displeasure and preference to remove the board for example, this general information may be of interest to Mr.Wynne. Any comments by interested posters would be invaluable. However in terms of removing board members, this raises the issue as to how to replace the board, and again begs the question as to who may be qualified.
I indicated in posts last year that I had been in contact with Mr.Wynne (and remain in contact) - contact with Mr.Wynne was obtained by contacting Scott Rochfort (SMH) who kindly acted as a go between. I'm not certain whether this same favour would be extended, however my suggestion is for any interested individuals to try the same course of action. Should contact be made, all I can say without violating any privacy, TOU or related issues is that information available is extremely interesting and I have found Barry to be exceptionally frank, honest and open.

As regards the above post, it is extremely difficult to determine whether as individual holders we have sufficient voting power to assist any individual or institional holder should they be interested in taking any action. Difficult in the sense of protecting privacy of posters as well as working within the limits of the TOU. Nonetheless it is in my opinion possible that we have a reasonably large number of combined holdings and that this would be advantageous should anyone consider action, and I would certainly appreciate any qualifications from interested posters.