So Alan Beasley called me back. Qudos to him. He has just spoken...

So Alan Beasley called me back. Qudos to him.

He has just spoken to me for 36 minutes about the upcoming EGM. So I will address a few items he said and I hope to give you an accurate account of what he said. I tried to ask about some of the topics that others had raised on this thread.

1) the dates of EGM.
Clearly there was a lot of legal back and for the here and the board in their submission required potentially lots of assurances from AB. Some of these were totally unacceptable (asking for his resignation) . AB required clarification from his legal team as to the implications of these. This of course took a lot of time. There were many weighty issues which he needed to consider and didn't want to do those lightly. I.e he did a considered, measured and methodical appraisal of these before replying.
In addition for his response he wanted supplied company accounts, which he requested but was told there was no draft available. As a director he should have full access to these and this was alarming to him. Especially with his financial background.
In addition he met his obligations and replied before the deadline that the board had imposed, so where's the issue.

in my view for the board to not have planned for this when they themselves set the deadline is a ridiculous excuse.

2) Steven Xu - He tried to get Steven Xu appointed to the board numerous times. this was rejected each time. He noted Xu approached him early on to get on the board as majority shareholder and Xu became increasingly frustrated at being knocked back numerous times. My opinion is that AB & SX are clearly aligned. He was surprised when the board suddenly elected him to "rapture".. (see my previous post)

In addition he noted certain board member had blocked Xu because they thought the board had too many representatives with a financial background, despite his Canadian contacts and potential benefits to the company.

3) Evidence for his accusations.
He noted he would provide some things at the EGM. I told him that many people would have to vote before that knowledge so did he plan on releasing information to the "masses". He noted this was tricky for legal reasons and while he wanted to counter anything the board had said in retaliation he had to take into consideration any impact that may have on the proceedings, shareholder sentiment (SP) before necessary. In effect he wanted to avoid a slanging match.

4) His ego.
I asked him if this was about his ego. He said no and that he has other board appointments and doesn't need the money, its personal for him as he wants the business to succeed. I think he has made mention in the press before about family illness etc. He noted that only true innovation will come through the small companies and I found his responses self deprecating and humble.

5) removal of CEO if ABs motion passes.
He noted that was not an issue and not something he or anyone he knew would wish to go down. he noted though that if the CEO stood down due to alignment with the board then there was nothing they could do but would put in a seamless transition plan to ensure as least disruption as possible.

6) Whether he thought he had the votes to pass.
he said he did as he wouldn't have gone into this lightly. He also noted other large shareholders were unhappy and they had previously asked for the register in December with a view to calling an EGM on the same or similar grounds

7) his future if his motion failed.
he said he would most likely be removed at the AGM as if his motions failed he would accept that shareholders didn't think he was operating in the best interests of the company.

8) the stability of the company.
he noted the fundamentals of the company were sound and that was not his worry (it was my worry), although he could not comment on the financials as he had not been provided with them. He was specifically unhappy about some of the decisions that have not been announced to the shareholders, i.e. the transparency and the sense of entitlement of some of the new regime. Blatantly ignoring company policy and jetting off in first class (while previously it was company policy to fly economy).

Now while some may argue that's petty, it goes to a flagrant disrespect to entrenched policy and shareholder money. He spoke at length about the board being custodians of the company that was based on shareholders funds.

In summary I found him an incredibly articulate and honest person and appreciated the candour and length he discussed everything with me, despite some of my arguably difficult questions. It was clear to me that he cared significantly about the company and how it as run. He obviously took exception to some of the (in my words) lax practices that the board were involved in and simply wanted these tightened up, but despite numerous internal calls for that to happen he was ignored and sidelined.

You can make up your own mind, but I suggest anyone with doubt should call the man and speak to him directly. Any doubt I had before about his integrity has evaporated.

He's exactly the kind of guy I want in charge of my hard earned shareholding. Jesus I'd elect his for prime minister.

He quoted me a line from Macbeth, "the lady doth protest too much" as a fitting retort to the boards mud slinging.