Ann: Notice of General Meeting/Proxy Form, page-16

Was hoping for some ideas on the beneficiaries of the 61.5m shares from our more corporate savvy and well connected posters.
For the record, I am no crusader against corporate greed. Personally I think non executive directors should get very reasonable fees that reflect their experience and be heavily pressured to buy share on market as a demonstration of their faith in and commitment to the company. However I support an equity component in the salary component of executives.

My entire focus with regards to Realm is seeing it come out of suspension. If the Taurus boys and our new directors gouge us for a few million on the way, I have little choice but to accept it as an unfortunate part of of doing business in some sectors of corporate Australia.

Since the Foxleigh acquisition we have been under extraordinary scrutiny by the ASX. In an industry where corporate shenanigans are often overlooked, not advising the ASX of a major change in the scope of the business should not have been a hanging offence. I will not break the confidence of private conversations with people close to the matter, but suffice to say there is a belief that the harsh position taken by the ASX was in response to complaints by an influential third party. My point is, whilst under such continuing security, why take the chance of more scrutiny into what are arguably over generous director payments and questions about the issue of 61.5m shares to undisclosed parties. I am not suggesting anything illegal but given the circumstances I think they need to be squeaky clean and transparent. I am hoping none found their way to interests related to a director because my understanding is such interests have to be declared and I can find no evidence of such.

Back to the specific business of the AGM, I feel there could be a case, although somewhat tenuous, for Taurus to abstain on the resolutions pertaining to the issue of shares to Directors on the following basis. If shareholders approve the issue of upto ten million shares to each of the 3 new directors on what they describe as the same terms as the 61.5m shares that were issued to the unnamed parties, that would arguably legitimize the terms of that issue, or at least support their contention that the terms were reasonable. I would suggest this is arguably a potential conflict of interest which a prudent board might wish to avoid. As an aside, I wonder if the parties that got the 61.5m shares also got the interest free loan (6.15c x 62.5 = 3.78m dollars). If this did occur not sure how it would be accounted for but might explain why the cash flow for the last quarter was a little less than I expected.

I will be writing to the company this week outlining my concerns.