Thanks for the fair question — it's one that deserves a clear and structured response.
You're right: calling for an EGM and potentially removing directors is a serious step. But when a company like Chimeric Therapeutics (ASX:CHM) consistently ignores shareholder concerns, delays disclosure of critical information (e.g., CORE-NK trial data), and fails to meet its legal obligations under the Corporations Act, what alternative is left?
For context:
On 10th March 2025, I formally requested the share register under Section 173 of the Corporations Act — a right every shareholder is entitled to.
The company has refused to provide it in full, stating that my application is 'invalid' without providing any reasons as to why it is 'invalid' - which is an outright obstruction of shareholder rights. This alone raises serious concerns about what the company is trying to prevent shareholders from seeing.
This is not an isolated issue. I've posted extensively in the "Identified Issues" thread about:
Material omissions under ASX Listing Rule 3.1
Potential breaches of s1041H (misleading or deceptive conduct)
Consistent lack of transparency and engagement
Delayed or non-existent responses to formal correspondence
So, what’s the end game if an EGM succeeds?
If certain directors are removed, here’s what I would support:
Appointment of qualified, independent directors
Not just warm bodies — people with clinical, commercial, governance, and market expertise who will hold management accountable and ensure proper oversight.
Governance overhaul
Re-establish independent oversight of the Nom & Rem Committee
End the current “insider circle” dynamic
Introduce board performance reviews and KPIs tied to delivery
Shareholder communication reset
Immediate updates on overdue trial progress
Open lines with both retail and institutional holders
Clear policy to respond to all correspondence within reasonable timeframes
Strategic review of capital use, partnerships, and direction
Determine if the current clinical path is viable or if alternative monetisation/partnership paths should be explored
End the approach of burning shareholder funds without clear milestones or market updates
So yes — I do believe shareholders will be better off, because the company will finally be run for shareholders, not just by insiders.
If we keep tolerating poor governance and silence, we’ll keep getting diluted, misled, and ignored. That’s not acceptable — and I won’t just sit back and let it continue.
Happy to discuss further or clarify anything.
