now let's finish this off., page-8

I'm struggling somewhat on why there is a recommendation to keep two of the directors who approved the appointment of Mangelsdorf and Brooks at the 12th hour. Surely a board with a 3 to 1 new v's old is better than a 3 v's 3 board (Ando isn't up for vote).

At the very least Kalland and Lonngren need to state why they voted for the appointment of Mangelsdorf and Brooks or preferably confirm they voted against their appointment.
Explaining their support for the "performance shares/rights" earlier in the year also needs to be explained. Also why were they party to a statement that all board members would resign if Jones et al went?

I assume this will be explained in a letter shortly but I think the new directors would be well advised to recommended that only one other director be voted for so at the worst case they have a 3 v 2 balance and will definitely get the chairmanship.