agree Meta5 and as Gecko pointed out, i believe the current...

agree Meta5 and as Gecko pointed out, i believe the current directors are working in the interest of current shareholders. I do appreciate though that NHC will shake them up a bit.

Yes we are all upset with the share price but we all held/bought at different levels based on the strategy management put out. If we didn't agree we would have sold out a long time ago. They laid out their plans 3 years ago and tried to execute it but poor results in some regions along with public backlash has delayed/cancelled some of those plans. It's not like they decided they wanted to suddenly become a fishing company overnight.

NHC just want the board removed so they can lodge a cheap takeover bid -with full board support of course- later. Unless NHC put forward a strategy that is better than the path we're on, then we know what their intentions are. It is a known takeover strategy to use a board spill as a low risk/cheap way to acquire a company. NHC at the moment know if they get a weak replacement board with no holdings in the company they can potentially save hundreds of millions of dollars all for just the cost of sending out PR material.

It's far easier to do what they're doing than prepare a acquisition schema and going back and forth trying to win board approval.

excerpt from http://www.corrs.com.au/thinking/insights/board-spills-will-rise-as-shareholders-revolt-but-companies-are-not-helpless/:

The third reason we think there will be an increase in shareholder activism and Board spills in Australia is that it may be a viable alternative to the traditional hostile takeover bid.

In the past where a bidder has knocked on the door of a company and hasn’t been able to get the support of the target Board – in many cases they have just launched a hostile takeover bid and there are a number of problems with that. One of the problems is that you do need funding in place upfront for the entire equity value of the company. You generally don’t have due diligence at the beginning of the process and it’s a very protracted and long process – it often takes three to six months to finish and in most cases you need to increase the offer price to actually succeed. So that is quite a problematic and difficult path.

On the other hand, a bidder may well want to use a Board spill resolution as the first step towards a change of control transaction. So they could put forward a new slate of candidates which may be more open to consider a proposal down the track. They don’t need much capital to do that – they only need a very small shareholding and they are really not taking much risk at that point in time. If the Board spill resolution is successful they can then move forward with the conventional offer letter, access to due diligence and also a friendly proposal hopefully with the support of the Board. So we think that’s quite a viable alternative that may be considered going forward by companies.