We have now been provided with two completely different reasons...

We have now been provided with two completely different reasons as to why the company is advocating the removal of Mr Ward as a director. Each shareholder will need to make up their own mind as to who to believe.

I think Mr Ward’s statement is much more credible than the explanation given by the company. The whole S249 process struck me as being a bit odd – a group of shareholders recommend the removal of Mr Ward and give no reason for doing so and seven of the eight shareholders have never met Mr Ward? The company then recommends voting for the resolution a yet initially gives no reason. Shareholders were simply expected to blindly support the board.

The board doesn’t endorse Mr Ward’s statement and claims it is factually inaccurate. Mr Ward has raised serious concerns over the Corporate Governance at IDA and I would have liked the company’s response to be more detailed, addressing each of the points raised by Mr Ward. I cannot think of a good reason why this has not been done.

A number of posters on these forums have claimed that Mr Ward is only acting in the best interests of himself and not IDA shareholders. This does not make any sense to me. I can’t believe that Mr Ward would make up these serious concerns over Corporate Governance just to stay on in his post as Director – the post only pays $60k per annum and he also received $21k of options. As far as I am aware that is the only benefit Mr Ward gets from his role as Director. If there is something I have missed or am not aware of please let me know.

Some have questioned what Mr Ward’s contribution has been to the company since his appointment as Director. One hugely important duty he has done is to scrutinise the company’s Corporate Governance. As a retail shareholder that is hugely important to me.

It seems to me that the downside of keeping Mr Ward as a Director is tiny, whilst I worry about the company’s Corporate Governance if he is removed. The company’s reason for removing Mr Ward appears to be that he is not required as the board has sufficient expertise. Having an extra Director on the board for $60k seems a small price to pay to me.