I’m no legal eagle, but I suspect that the “aggrieved 5%” may be technically in trouble because of the way they have gone about things. My understanding is that if the 249D notice is given prior to the 203 D notice, as it was, then the company does not have to call a meeting. Where do we go from here? I just hope we aren’t going to use precious funding on sorting out legal claptrap. I'm all for the 5% crew to have the opportunity to clearly state their grievances, but not to pay for their incompetence (if my interpretation above is correct). Equally, I would like to read GC’s rebuttal of whatever the allegations might be. The board must be very confused & conflicted on this matter. Not a good look for all associated stakeholders, the SEQ ‘hem’ is visibly waving in the breeze.
SEQ Price at posting:
51.0¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)