I couldn't help but notice that Nigel and Rhett Brans were brought in by Klaus and directors and associates of his from other companies (Okapi etc) which makes sense from the standpoint of small companies wanting to know who they are working with and not spend heaps of money on recruitment searches etc - but it also is a potentially dangerous situation with respect to governance *if* you have a director that is inclined to mine the shareholders on stock exchanges for his own benefit rather than what is in the ground.
When Klaus resigned there was no apology or acknowledgement of wrongdoing in any form and the company wished him well and thanked him in the announcement of his departure. He then went on * and put a spin on his selling - I don't know who paid * for the spin, if it was Klaus or AVZ or no-one.
Clearly replacing a director with an empty chair is not something a company needs to do - if there is no problem the outgoing director can resign as the incoming director comes in.
What is unclear, and still an open question to me is to what extent AVZ actually acknowledges that it had a real problem and so really wants to fix it as opposed to recognizing it had a perceptual problem and wanted to appear to fix it in the hope the market would move on.
Be interesting to see if this Leonard Math has been sourced from a Klaus network or whether he is someone genuinely new with skills and no former association with Klaus. I'd obviously prefer no association of any sort with Klaus.
Respect you opinion @binwood - did you read my post(s) on the Security Trading Policy - how it was possible for Klaus and AVZ to truthfully answer no to the Appendix 3Y question - Were the securities or contracts traded above during a closed period where prior written authorisation was required? - ONLY because Klaus had used exceptional circumstances clauses and waivers within that out of date policy which did not require the chairman get prior written authorisation?
Reason I ask is - its a messy business to push forward with - complaints can be made to ASIC and or the ASX (but in my opinion the ASX own guidelines are poorly written so ASX is slightly part of the problem) and ASIC requires complaints be made in a fairly constrained way and then reserves the right to proceed or not in a variety of ways as they see fit.
Having a good dispassionate analysis of whether what I have written is fair or valid or not would help.
Leaving it and moving on leaves a problem unresolved which might be resolvable. In my opinion AVZ with good governance (which involves some specific but doable things) becomes a good investment. AVZ without isn't.
(20min delay)