There are a few odd things in the notice of meeting that I am...

There are a few odd things in the notice of meeting that I am considering voting against.

If the technology division sale doesn't become a concrete fact prior to the meeting, then there is no reason to vote in favour of resolutions 3, 4 or 5 (board limit to 3, remuneration report, re-election of director). If it all turns out to be the disorganised shambles it currently appears to be, then the directors who took the company into it should be resigning. On the other hand, if the sale does go through, then no reason to retain the board limit as cost is not an objection.

As far as resolution 6 goes for the divestment of up to 49% of the underlying entities, this seems repugnant to me as does not specify a value at which the holdings can be disposed. The reasons given suggest firstly that they will be able to attract investors who don't want to invest directly in IVT - well, if they are prepared to accept a position in an unlisted entity and see an advantage in this, I would say it is more likely they believe they can gain a favourable price advantage over investing in IVT itself. Given the subsidiaries should be financially ring-fenced the second reason about project-oriented finance seems a weak argument and unclear how it would change access to funds. The third reason is laughable - given director performance to date, why would other entities want to hire them to undertake corporate duties on their behalf? "Please could you just demonstrate your talents by managing the two businesses you've got already!" Based on directors history to date, it seems just as likely this approval could be used to give away half the business for a much smaller fraction of the current NTA or even market cap. This resolution should also be pulled if the sale of IVTT goes through, as there will then be no justification for it (having only one subsidiary and excess cash). However, this does not seem to be the intention, given it is not flagged, unlike resolution 8.

Finally, resolution 8 to sell a property to a related party, I am unclear why the related party should have the right to buy at the highest bid above the reserve - surely if there is bidding above the reserve, the property should sell to the highest bidder. If the related party wants it, they should be able to bid in the process.

This would certainly be a fun meeting to go to if I could get there...