Ann: Section 249F Notice of Meeting, page-4

Maybe they've also done further shuffling/resignations to render some of the exact statements no-longer-quite-correct. But who cares!

Maybe the most valid point they raise is about the difficulty and potential expense of terminating the management services agreement with JBL. But I'd argue this is a necessary step, whatever the cost, and I think a legal argument could be mounted that the termination costs should not apply due to mismanagement (numerous examples of that could be outlined).

They go on about how they're still doing macro trading with a large turnover and that this leaves the primary capital free for other uses in the meantime. But just look at what the NTA has done and decide if you trust them with either the capital OR the macro trading. I don't. If I was a holder, I'd vote them out too.