Ann: Results of EGM, page-10

Most intriguing development. Initial thoughts are:
1. Chris Giles has as much right to change his mind as any other shareholder. The stated claim of seeking recovery of 'costs' against Dr Giles and/or the company appears hapless and doomed to fail. The deal requires shareholder approval, and it did not succeed. What is more remarkable is that the Company or Board would promote such piffle about costs against itself in an ASX release. That is conduct that may appear to be seen to be not acting in the interests of shareholders.

2. It is most remarkable that the company or Board proceeded with what is essentially a takeover under terms that its own commissioned expert report advised was 'not fair'.

3. Another way of saying 'not fair' is that it was a dud deal for existing shareholders. 'BAD DEAL', as Trumpy would say. If the market considered the deal to be attractive (and the company has had every opportunity to market it and expound its virtues), we would have seen the HAV share price increase as the EGM due approached. Quite the opposite, the deal has been viewed by the market with gloom, and the share price has sunk.

4. With 36m shares in favour, and 118m against, the deal would have sunk whether or not Chris Giles supported it. I think he showed character and guts (and good financial sense) in rejecting a weak deal. Whether or not he initially supported it seems irrelevant - the company's own advice subsequently was that it was not fair, the market reaction was that it was a dud, and he is seeking a better outcome. Good for him.

5. The Chairman's dud deal got whacked by the Company's shareholders, and in reply, the Chair appears to have launched a vitriolic attack against the founder and largest shareholder. In so doing, it is self-evident that the Chairman's position with Havilah is plainly untenable and it has come to an end, whether he likes it or not. No surprise to see a section 249D notice appear yesterday ... the Chair is history. If I were in their shoes, I would also be worried about receiving an unfriendly notice pursuant to section 237 of the Corporations Act, or after the event, from a significant shareholder.