Ann: AGM Date and Director Nominations, page-54

Shareholders threatening the board to call a 249D and the board just agreed. Two things on this front Roller:

1. A 249D is a horrible idea and it's never a good outcome, threatening the board was a bad idea
2. The board who spoke so highly of Peter when he was appointed had him resign.


Was Peter not as good as what the board had suggested? If so that's not a good look for a board to appoint someone, speak so highly of him and then have him removed so quickly.


Where was the Due diligence by the board?
Could due diligence have been lacking that lead to this current suspension?
Horrible look eitherway