Ann: Ceasing to be a substantial holder from MS, page-10

Even if APAC had a nominee director on the Board, it is not a takeover ... nor a proportional takeover ... so the Board claim of a soft takeover, when only 1 director is proposed to join the Board, is plainly nonsense. If anything is weird and improper it is the incumbent Board proposing to list 3 new directors AFTER the AGM:
a) Thereby not giving shareholders the right to choose them, elect them or reject them ... when the opportunity to do so exists
b) That adding 3 additional directors to the Board appears excessive and as a wanton waste of shareholder funds. How many directors do they want on the Board? 6?
c) Adding 3 new shoe-ins appears to me to be an attempt to nullify or wipe out the influence of the APAC proposed director -- there would be so many directors added that the influence of the APAC one would be minimised. That too is playing with shareholder funds for improper purposes, and arguably denying shareholders what they intended, if the Brett Smith chap was elected.