A huge conflict of interest when a director on the board owns...

A huge conflict of interest when a director on the board owns 30% of the company and is owed $115 million (via his corporate associations). Despite the fact that he can't vote, or get anyone else to vote on his behalf on this proposal, I would find it very difficult NOT to believe that the entire thrust of this whole arrangement has not been proposed by him, and simply agreed to by the remaining members of the board. They (members of the board), it seems, are more interested in protecting their own positions, (as well as those of Carroll and Gallagher, who will be jettisoned into the new corporate structure, their jobs and source of income safe and secure).

If the "No" vote gets up, would Saville simply call in the receivers and let them carve up the remains of the company, sell everything for what they can get (and as indicated in the Inedependent Expert's report, this would be less than what is owing) and pass on the proceeds to him? Or would he reassess, consider the implications of the vote and go back to the drawing board...perhaps to draft a more considered arrangement that might allow the company to carry on its business, and include the existing shareholders (in a more inclusive fashion than currently proposed) in the new arrangement. It would appear that if the receivers come in, the business is finished, along with any chance of Saville ever getting back the full costs of his investment.
let's also not forget that the Independent Expert's report was written against the figures shown in the Annual report, and as noted in that report, events and circumstances can alter the status of that report since its publication (note the positive inflow of cash in recent months). if the NO vote is substantial enough, it may even convince the market that there may still be value in the company, if not right now, possibly in the future.

I'm going to vote yes on the sale of the Onelink shares to fund the litigation, but NO on all other proposals, unless a company representative can give me compelling reasons to do otherwise, and I don't believe they can.