I agree. I shall vote my 300K AGAINST Res 2-5 and FOR Res 6-86....

I agree. I shall vote my 300K AGAINST Res 2-5 and FOR Res 6-8

6. Election of Director – Mr Mark Gandur (a candidate not endorsed by the Board)

7. Election of Director – Mr David Harris (a candidate not endorsed by the Board).

8. Contingent Resolution: Conditional Spill Resolution

Asoshcomau says, Corps Act Section 250BD states that votes cannot be cast on the Rem Reportby KMP or their closely related parties. The same is true of Resolution 8 tohold a spill meeting (apart from the CEO, under s250V.) This is confirmed by the Notice of (first) Meeting. Thus, since RG owns 88.04%, only 11.96% of shares are allowed to vote. Thus even if everybody else votes, Res 2 and 8 can be decided by holders of 6%. Since Gandur and Harris control 6.6% their votes alone would be enough to make 2 fail and 8 pass. Of course it would be desirable if ALL minority holders vote against Res 2 and for Res 8, to show how strongly they feel.

Per oshcomau, the NOM for the spill EGM says “There is no voting exclusion applicable to the resolutions to be put at this Meeting” so RG can and will vote in favour of all three affected directors, i.e. himself, Chua and Wachtel, so they will be voted back onto the Board. I’m surprised at this because my reading of s250V(2) is that the same persons who are excluded under the first NOM are also excluded under the second NOM by virtue of the cross references in s 250V(2) to s205R. However, my interpretation must be wrong, alas: clearly RG would have had his lawyers check what those sections mean. It’s still worth voting as above, to show how widespread the minority investor dissatisfaction is.

Moreover,the EGM is only able to reinstate RG, Chua and Wachtel. It cannot beused by RG to sack Gandur and Harris, if they have been successful at the firstmeeting. That’s why it is crucial for minority holders to vote FOR Gandur andHarris at the first meeting. They hold 6.6% and will be the best advocates for the other 5.4% minority holders: they should be on the board. Their appointments will survive whatever happens at the second meeting.