bobs last post, page-36

ACP123 wrote:
"The voting form for that meeting clearly indicates (towards the bottom of the ‘step 2’ section) that the Chairman intends to vote undirected proxies in favour of each item of business. Because of the way the resolutions were worded, the board were actually recommending voting in favour of some resolutions, and against others (in particular against 10 and 12 to remove Dunmore and Askin)."

Thanks for pointing this out. I hadn't noticed this blunder, and this was the first time it's been brought to my attention, so it's likely others hadn't noticed it either.

As for the meeting being Democratic, I believe that the board should have allowed a pole about and Adjournment of the meetings. There was large applause for this indicating a lot of support, and it had also been stated by the supreme court judge that the shareholders should be able to decide o nan adjournment.

I also believe that the resolution removing JH and approving RC should not have been linked, because the ASX states that it is highly recommended that you don't link two resolutions, ESPECIALLY for the removing and approval of board members.

Both points were raised to Askin and dismissed by him, which is where I think he will come to trouble. If he was so confident in the results he should have allowed the vote for the adjournment and the unlinking of the resolution.

It was obvious to me at the meeting that there was a lot of unease at the way Askin ignored the will of the shareholders present, and no surprise that CP would see a way to take legal action against the way the meeting was run.

It is a shame; Askin would have come out of the meeting a lot cleaner if he had followed regular and recommended practice.