I’m no legal eagle, but I suspect that the “aggrieved 5%” may be...

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.