To call an EGM, we would need 5%; I have it as 418,264,573...

To call an EGM, we would need 5%; I have it as 418,264,573 shares with the additional 27,000,000 to Thorney.

That would mean approximately 20,913,229 shares required.

A broad question, but what is the mood of the "room" , and what is the support from posters and others they know involved? I know I could rely on the support of several million shares, at least. This EGM could affect change and transparency on matters



FYI here is the top 10:

1. Thorney Investment Group Australia Pty Ltd. - 83,234,750 shares
2. Stephen McGovern - 12,799,921 shares
3. Peter Pawlowitsch - 7,606,359 shares
4. Venn Milner Superannuation Pty Ltd. - 6,800,000 shares
5. One Investment Group Pty Ltd. - 5,693,198 shares
6. James Slaney - 5,495,207 shares
7. Fishers Supermarkets Pty Ltd. - 4,770,120 shares
8. Fishers Stores Management Pty Ltd. - 3,637,000 shares
9. Germain Richard - 3,428,000 shares
10. Jalsu Pty Ltd. - 3,400,000 shares

***
Let's recap 2022, what transpired, and what Mr Pawlowitsch said he would introduce. He was acting CFO, was renumerated for it, but yet here we are in a worse mess.

An ugly sequence of events

Dubber shares were suspended from trade last Monday, 3 October 2022 after failing to ledge its annual report by the due date.

After market close on Friday, Dubber released its annual report, which was filled with negative restatements surrounding its earnings and debt.

On Monday, the company's chief financial officer resigned and will be replaced by executive director Peter Pawlowitsch for the interim.

"In that role Mr Pawlowitsch will lead a comprehensive review of all current practices, processes and systems in the Company’s finance function," Dubber said in a statement.

More questions than answers

Dubber posted in preliminary final report on 30 August, where the company delivered a 55% increase in revenue to $35.9m and a -$64.7m loss.

The restated financials corrected revenue to $25.3m and losses to -$83.2m. Management said this reflected a "modification in the treatment of platform and foundation based income."

The $18.5m net loss differential comprised of:

• A doubtful debt expense relating to trade debtors for $8.16m after a customer failed to meet contractual payments

• A $10.33m initially recognised as revenue but reversed following management's assessment that the likelihood of the company collecting the amount owning as "not probable"