Today the incumbent RHG directors having taken legal advice are...

Today the incumbent RHG directors having taken legal advice are of the opinion that the requisition is invalid. They now propose a compromise that they will put the voting onto the board of Messrs Johnson and Hoffman.

So essentially instead of accepting that calling a meeting was the intent and will of more than 5% of its shareholders the directors are basically telling all of us that we can take a hike if its not perfectly drawn up.

In addition they no longer propose to put to the agm the removal of Mr Coe who has sold his shares.

I found their response to be a bit one sided. If you truly see yourself as representing shareholders than even if the notice is deficient you can still overlook that and call a meeting. Unless you have decided that you dont in fact represent shareholders but your own interests or only those interests of some of the shareholders.

The cost of meeting issue is bs as it probably cost us the shareholder that in getting a team of legal eagles to find all these so called deficiencies. Even if, after review, there are no deficiencies than they have just raised the bar as you have to go to court to enforce your rights.

I would call to vote off 2 of their directors and appoint the nominated two at the agm if I was the petitioning shareholders.

Really I don’t see much of the olive branch just an attempt to frustrate and delay. I will from now on vote against the appointment of all 4 incumbent directors. Will I sell my equity only after this has played out I suspect these guys see our money as theirs forever. I wont hand around if that's the case as I will clearly remember the experience of shareholders in other companies that have been associated with one of the directors.

In reality you can only invest in companies where the directors see shareholders as part of the company.