G'Day Hamondo. I can relate to your frustration at the current SP but respectfully suggest your wrath is at least partly misdirected.
"MT has done a shocking job in the last four months and is the sole reason for the SP collapse." The SP had fallen from a high above 50 cents to 29 cents (closing price on 22 April) before MT resigned, so his resignation cannot be the sole reason for the falling SP.
"If he really did quit for "personal reasons", in his position as the CEO, he should have handled the announcement better than the "CEO resigns and Johns taking over" announcement that shocked the SH, crashed the SP and left the board in disarray until he miraculously gets over his "personal reasons" to come back as the triumphant hero." I think you will find the announcement you are referring to was 'handled' by the previous BoD. Yes, the announcment was poorly managed and the resignation caused the SP to fall. As for the board being in disarray, let's remember that MT was not a member of the BoD back then. If the resignation of a key employee causes an ASX listed company's board to be in disarray then I'd say they've got some major governance issues (which I do think was the case and is a major reason for the shakeup since). MT's 'return' (he was still employed and in his notice period) only occurred post the replacment of the old BoD, which was instigated by SHs not MT.
"If he hadn't had his "personal reasons" (which was code for "I didn't get what I wanted so I threw a hissy fit and quit") the SP would have stayed near 40c and screamed higher after the FDA announcement. and even higher again on the Heally announcement!" I realise that you are speaking from a position of ignorance (in the proper meaning of the word, not an insult) but I can assure you that there was no hissy fit or not getting what he wanted. I believe there were no demands made at all. Instead, as I understand it, the old BoD wanted to pursue outcomes that MT disagreed with. My assessment was that those outcomes were not in the best interests of SH, although I accept that is a judgement call. I also believe that the resignation should not have taken the then BoD by surprise. As already mentioned, the SP closed at 29 cents the day prior to MT's resignation, so it couldn't stay near 40 cents as it was already well below that price and trending downwards.
"He then does a cash raise at 19.5c for a measly $18m. This cash raise should have been happening in the 30c - 50c range based off the momentum of the results and the FDA approval gaining $30m plus for the trials ahead." I couldn't agree more - the raise should have been done in that price range and I will never understand why the old BoD didn't pull the trigger on a raise when they had the opportunity. This is a board responsibility. Once again, MT was not on the BoD then and cannot be held accountable for that failure. As for the decision to raise now at 19 cents, I'm not sure what else the current board could do. The money was needed now and IMO the raise was handled really well - the SPP in particular (same terms as instos and sophs, no freebies to placement participants, Morgans options issued at a premium).
I'm responding to you in this way because I was more closely involved in what occurred post MT's resignation and have the benefit of knowing more about what happened than most. I'm certainly not wanting to devalue your opinion and I respect that this has been a trying time for SH as the corporate goings-on have introduced an element of uncertainty and distracted from some really good news that should have moved the SP upwards. However, there are some factual inaccuracies that appear to be fuelling your and others unhappiness with our MD, which I've endeavoured to address.
And, of course, you can vote however you like at the AGM. I do hope, though, that your vote is informed by fact and not driven by emotion.
(20min delay)