IncognitoIn all the constitutions I have seen, the shareholders...

Incognito

In all the constitutions I have seen, the shareholders only get to elect directors as directors and not for any specific role within the Board. The directors themselves then can appoint a chairman from their group.

I agree on the chances of getting any independent 5th director - it won't happen.

As for the deposit, the issue I have is that the deposit has been constructed so that shareholders are forced to vote for it so as to not lose the $800k deposit. That shows that the Board is trying to force the hands of the shareholders where they should be in fact winning the shareholders over with solid supporting information. If the deal is so good and beneficial to the organisation then of course the shareholders will vote for it. Threatening them with lost funds and supplying minimal supporting information is not the action of a board interested in the shareholders as a whole.

With regard to Con acting in the interest of shareholders, the only reason he came out against the FAS deal was that the independent expert report was not in support of the deal. Blind Freddie could see that the deal was a sham and again I express my concern for those shareholders who accepted the FAS offer. Con should go.

Your suggestion that FAS have 2 directors and PMM only have 1 does not follow given FAS only have approx 23% of the shares. Surely the additional 3% does not warrant a second director. Neither of thm should have more than 1 rep on the board.