Corporate action, page-136

Hi @Bunter62
i am not sure you have been in PAA all that long and I think you raise a valid point.

Wouldn’t you think a board with the volume of investors (top to smallest) all saying enough is enough would proactively address the issues?

For those of us that have been with PAA over years and years, and have defended the board on many occasions previously, this one is the bridge too far. I am not regressing and that is exactly where this will go if no action is taken. Maybe worse!

The stated reason was personal. From my significant inquiring it is quite apparent that there was a valid disagreement with the board and I stand with the proposal to reinstatement of Michael to active duty and rejuvenate the board.

I won’t say trust me, but look back at the history of PAA progress, then look at the last 8 months.

Then look at what is lined up to happen but is now extremely at risk other than ODD which Michael has enabled and OLE trial onboarding top line results which team Michael and John have enabled.

All the relationships and all the foundations are under the stewardship of Michael.

So I don’t think that it is unwarranted reactive behaviour rather a build up of situations and data points that has forced our hand.

It is fair to say that if you don’t have enough data points then for you it really might be and I can appreciate that.

cheers