Latest News / Resolution at AGM, page-88

Hotcopper getting a shoutout!

‘Support’ for Quintis spill bid
Sean Smith
Tuesday, 9 January 2018 11:18AM Sean Smith

Former Quintis managing director Frank Wilson in 2017.Picture: Nic Ellis
The Frank Wilson-backed shareholders trying to roll the board of Quintis claim they have the support of big sandalwood customers offering long-term sales contracts should new directors take control of the company.

The dissidents have also defended Quintis’ failure to disclose the termination of a supply contract with Nestle during Mr Wilson’s tenure as chief executive, claiming two class actions against the struggling company are “hinged off a false premise”.

Mr Wilson has teamed up with another shareholder, John Allen, to call an extraordinary meeting of Quintis at which they will seek to remove three of its four directors, including chairman Dalton Gooding and chief executive Julius Matthys.

The group, which claims to have the support of at least 20 per cent of Quintis, has been promoting its spill campaign on the HotCopper chat forum.

In one post, it says it is working with disgruntled sandalwood growers who recently threatened to try and dump Quintis as the manager of their plantations.

“We plan to make sure growers receive the highest possible prices,” the dissidents said.

“And through our network we have access to large international customers that will only deal with us (because they have no confidence in the current Quintis board and management) and some are willing to sign up to long-term contracts immediately the current board is replaced.”


In another post, the group argues the class actions against Quintis over inadequate disclosure “are hinged off a false premise and therefore are highly unlikely to succeed”.

The actions include one which names Mr Wilson as a separate respondent and alleges misleading or deceptive conduct over the termination of a supply contract with Nestle subsidiary Galderma that did not become public until months afterwards.

“It is arguable that the so-called termination agreement had no legal effect due to the lack of authority residing in the people who apparently signed it, none of whom were directors,” the group claims.

“Had the board not foolishly reacted in the manner they did by effectively ratifying the termination they could have not only challenged the legal validity of the termination, but they may have sued Galderma for a breach of confidentiality.”

Quintis has said only that it will oppose the spill bid.