Well said @SmallCapTech. TCN's board has not provided a single...

Well said @SmallCapTech.

TCN's board has not provided a single compelling reason for the de-listing IMO. The only advantage specified in the NoM (p6, extract below) in support of the de-listing is $70k in annual cost savings.

$70,000 in annual cost savings doesn't come close to compensating shareholders for the lack of liquidity that will result from a de-listing. A similar cost saving could be achieved through the reduction of the board of directors from 4 to 3, reducing director fees by ~$45k in the process. There is no need to have 4 directors for a company of TCN's size. 3 is the minimum required by the Corporations Act for a public company and that would be sufficient here. Given Ellerby is currently up for re-election, she is the logical candidate to go.

I was having a read of the notice of meeting relating to the Updatr de-listing a few years ago to try and get a better understanding of this process. What I found interesting is that the ASX determined that related parties of Updatr (including directors) were excluded from voting on the de-listing - see extract below and a link to the NoM here https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20180821/pdf/43xjjngjq7bb7x.pdf . What I don't understand is why the ASX has adopted a different approach with TCN, presumably it would have been disclosed in the TCN NoM that the ASX had determined that Karl Jacoby and Andrew Campbell (the only directors who hold shares) are excluded from voting as related parties? Either that or TCN NoM is deficient and should be amended and re-issued. Curious to get people's thoughts on this.