Class action, page-38

Before the recent EGM i suggested people vote against item 5 (link1) (link2). @dgoynich gave me a lashing for taking this position and many gave him thumbs ups (link3). Maybe a few more you now understand (or will shortly understand) why this was a necessary resolution to vote down. rule 7.1 allows a company to raise funds "without shareholder approval".  Voting this down would not prevent the company raising more capital but would mean that shareholder approval is required. This is basically the only way we as shareholders can impart any kind of financial discipline on our executive. Obviously our board is not capable or willing to provide this kind of discipline on WP's apparent desire to burn cash as fast as possible. In principle i agree with WP's desire to develop more high value products however the company must live within its means. Occasional capital raising to fund development which will provide a step change in revenue is ok but we cannot accept multiple CR's per year to fund gradiose (albeit admirable) development spending that is out of kilter with the size/maturity status of this company. WP continuing as our CEO is still be best path forward however, the board needs to re-establish itself as the one providing direction and guidance (limits) to WP and not the other way around as seems has been the case this last year or so since code red. A class action is not going to provide the best outcome for shareholders but may help to focus directors on their fiduciary duties perhaps. Also i believe the actions of M Ratty would still be subject to insider trading laws regardless of whether he was a director or not, ASIC should look into it but likely won't. As we all know ASIC are useless. ASIC should also be investigated in the financial royal commission so it can be clearly seen once and for all just how useless they are and what needs to change at this department to ensure they properly perform the regulation/policing they are supposed to be providing, especially of asx listed companies where mum and dad investors largely put their investment/super monies. We also have a "2nd Strike" on the next remuneration report that we can inflict on management/directors if necessary (looking like this will be necessary).