Ann: Notice received under S249D & Shareholder Update, page-37

Any self respecting company director and human, with even an ounce of intelligence and decency and common-sense, would say ok, let's sit down and talk about a positive and healthy board transition in the interests of all shareholders and the company itself. This is what they would do if they were operating in the best interests of shareholders.

Why won't they do this?

My gut feeling tells me they don't want the books opened for scrutiny by new shareholder based directors, which means that IF this is true, then the current non-executive directors are effectively being paid some form of hush money.

If they can sell the company, then the books gets transferred to the acquiring company, and can effectively remain in-confidence, almost forever.

This current version of the board has taken on a look more like a protection racket, albeit probably a legal one within the loose confines of the corporation act. Never-the-less, it must be brought to account. The AGM performance was abysmal, and perturbing, and only reinforced the view.

The company has long needed shareholder representatives on the board, given it's 5 or 6 versions over the past 13 years, and the reprehensible behaviour some of those past board members have displayed. So this shareholder representative action should probably have occurred many years ago.

If there is any common-sense, or honesty and decency in the world of humans, the newly nominated shareholder representatives should receive 80% of the vote, if not, then I'm afraid the corporate underworld will continue to manipulate and dominate you, and fleece you remorselessly. The voting results may tell us a lot about human nature.

Gw