Just a query, if you are
not privy to why the two MD candidates who "mysteriously?" and suddenly withdrew their support, why are you suggesting that question could be answered by ASIC?
ASIC is the regulator for the governing bodies of companies either listed or unlisted, by suggesting redirecting the question to AISC is inferring there has been a breech of a clause/s or rule/s of either the Corporations Act or the ASX or both? I would suggest that you are close to the RM's (monitoring email) and if they suspected there was a breech, then surely they have registered a query with either ASIC or the ASX or both.
I have been on the end of some "trench warfare" (per se) dealing with a BOD that was served a s249D and I am not suggesting there was unethical behaviours but it was an interesting time, with legal threats, hotcopper bans etc.
@mudguts
re:
"
Do you want me to tell the public what they were told in order to buy their votes & pull out of the 249D, effective moving us back to stage one
.
I must say bravo, one of the dirtiest tricks ever, but it bought you the precious time you needed.
And do you want to me to elaborate on that point in this public forum all the gruesome detail?? Happy to do so if that is the case.
"
As above, if you are concerned that there has been unethical behaviour have you registered a query with any of the governing bodies (ASIC/ASX)?
Inferring behaviours or suggesting "crystal ball" luck when Gecko sold down their holdings, could be construed as just a smear campaign to garner votes, which is the exact thing you are suggesting the company is doing, indeed trench warfare
@Lfc786
I'm not sure if you were taking the p or genuinely don't know but Gecko
started selling their holding back in July 2018 and had finished offloading when the "Ceasing to be a Substantial Holder" notice was announced, taking into account the Scoping Study was announced in early November 2018 but Gecko had obviously decided to sell down prior to it being announced!
So not really re: "The biggest shareholder got their timing absolutely perfect.???"
Here is the one you previously posted with the dates of change included .......
Here is some questions for the RM's .....
Why have you decided to keep van Wyk?
Why is he immune to the flak the other board members are getting?
It appears that the proposed plan there will be a corporate review/ financial audit?
This is a time consuming and somewhat costly activity, will the new board have the credentials to be able to complete the review? or will the need to engage consultants?
Will the board requested a voluntary suspension while the review is in progress?
@bratty re: "
No thanks, a new board for me with no connections to the current one is the only way forward imo."
But they RM's are electing to keep van Wyk???
Considering he is the Managing Director of Gecko Namibia, so would he have been the one instrumental or part of the decision making for them selling out?
As for the Remuneration report, it must be voted on at the AGM (Corporations Act s250R(2)) but under (s250R(3))
the decision is advisory only
but it becomes the first strike, with a vote of 25% or more against. It only means that the subsequent Remuneration report must detail whether the shareholders concerns have been taken into account or what measures were taken. If the next vote is against, the board is then spilled (2nd strike)
https://www.companysecretary.com.au/board_briefings/RemunerationAccountability.pdf
From what I understand, concerns about the remuneration report need to be raised with the company and recorded in the minutes of the AGM, so just voting against the report will not give (either board of directors) measures that they will have to work with and improve/change etc. to then report back to the next AGM.
The proposed Constitution is necessary to align with the changes to the ASX listing rules and the Corporations Act.
Not in any way to be construed as advice, but voting against both these resolutions will be creating unnecessary work and time (IMO) for either board, the vote against the constitution and a vote against the remuneration report will be inherited by the new board that then has to allocate resources to it.
cheers
(20min delay)
