It's good to hear anything from the company but I wonder if the...

It's good to hear anything from the company but I wonder if the ability to raise extra capital was the complete reason for the fallout. Having the ability to raise capital is completely different to actually doing it in a way that disadvantages shareholders. The other ex Directors owned 20% of the company and presumably wouldn't want an issue that did not add to the value of their investment in the medium to longer term.

There are still lines of enquiry that I'd like the ASX to follow.

Today's announcement states that the new Directors (other than the Chairman's son) do not have any of the interests, positions or relationships identified in Box 2.3 of the 'ASX Corporate Governance Principles'. The ASX should seek confirmation in writing from the three new Directors that they do indeed satisfy Box 2.3 as the appointment of the Chairman's son as CEO is at odds with those governance guidelines. No doubt that is why the Chairman hopes to stand down in the next few months and will be busy looking for someone he can trust (control?) to take on the Chairman role.

Arulampalam resigned on the day prior to the AGM but this was not communicated to the market until 2.45pm the following day - 15 minutes before the start of the AGM. Arulampalam prepared an announcement regarding his resignation but a revised version was released. Why can't shareholders see the original version of his announcement - it may be more informative than the 2 brief lines released by the company.

The Chairman appears to exercise control over significantly more shares than his declared 16.3% ownership. How did he get an extra 289m shares or 20.9% of the company to support him in ousting Directors. Did he communicate private information to those shareholders not generally known to the market. The share price declined 27.8% in the weeks prior to the AGM without any information to explain such a fall.

We've heard his side of the story. Clearly if what he says is true about a dilutive rights issue that preferenced a Director's associates, he should have communicated the impass to shareholders and sought their support. Still not sure why the other Directors would have supported such a move. The whole thing still smells to me.