Share
1,717 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 62
clock Created with Sketch. 08/03/24
12:31
Share
Originally posted by Kaching68:
↑
S.249D of the Corps Act doesn't require the shareholders bringing the motion to give any background reasons (although it does give them the opportunity to) - and if they had done so, the Company would have been obliged to include them in the announcement and Notice of Meeting. It's a bit unusual, but it is what it is. The Company itself clearly therefore doesn't know the reason for the 249D - they are simply required to act on it and call the meeting. It looks like that small group of shareholders has formed the view that the Board would be better off without DW, and interestingly the Board itself has supported that view. There's clearly no allegation of anything wrong, or even a suggestion that he hasn't been an excellent director, it might just be time for change... who knows. That small group of shareholders has offered the idea up for voting by all shareholders, and I guess it'll take its course. Most small shareholders don't bother to vote in things like this, so it'll be decided by a relatively small group of the larger shareholders. Whichever way it goes, it'll be interesting!!
Expand
I have great admiration for BB and the board,BUT this is arrogant in the extreme to treat us large and small holders like mushrooms and aquanaut I admire your loyalty however your response to mr Anderson was rude.
(20min delay)