AGM fight, page-4

20 angry shareholders in attendance who think that the directors are not acting on their best interests. 3 reporters were kicked out, though i don't think the administrator has the right to bar visitors attendance. Administrator opened and closed the meeting in under 2 minutes without accepting the shareholder votes to remove directors (turns out 53% voted against directors anstey and hammond). Is that not irregular if not illegal? He says he has the right to do so but that is being looked into today to see if he breached regulations.
All of the below came out of the meeting and from questions asked directly of the Administrator, there was a shareholder there who took a transcript of the whole meeting and discussion.

Shareholders made it clear they didn't think the administrator was unbiased, they think that he has serious conflicts of interest. From discussion with shareholders attending, there seems to be a belief that 2 directors (who instigated the VA and were voted AGAINST by 53% shareholders) have personal interests in the CSS acquisition going ahead (in that at least one has been a director of the CSS until very recently). Apparently the CFO was replaced by a related party to chairman and shareholders/market was not informed, a funding facility by Millenium was withdrawn and market was not informed and no further effort was made to find a replacement funding option. Seriously there were so many things that were brought up and questions asked of the administrator that just seemed highly irregular. Therefore based on all of those questions asked yesterday and that have now been brought to light, the accumulation of them all, could potentially, IMHO, have serious questions raised about the role of the administrator and his relationship with the directors who brought the company into VA , and against the vote of the CEO.
One shareholder and Izzy also repeated to the adminstrator that the attendees were all hostile to him because they all, due to accumulation of all the information to light, that he was not without conflict and had an association to anstey. the administrator replied that he did have a relationship with anstey.
This is going to get bigger . Shareholders need to stand up.
R