With respect you appear not to understand the statutory...

With respect you appear not to understand the statutory legalities of  s.249D Notice and in particular the required time frames. (May I respectfully suggest you obtain legal advice).

It appears that you seem to think that a s.249D Notice can be issued at any time (Which it can with 5% support) and importantly can (could) have been joined and determined at the same time as the current OptionCo meeting.

That may have been possible if we had issued our s.249D the same day as Option Co or shortly thereafter.

But given that the Option Co group appears to want to remove part of the Cottee led board and end up with a Cottee led board, that is not a certainty and it possible that it could have been called either sooner or later or on the same date.

Also you may not be aware BUT the current board actually has the final say (excluding court intervention) as when the s.249D meeting would have to be determined.( ie what date)

That was something over which we had no control.

It is highly likely that it would have been held the same day, however further reasons appear below.

Also and importantly the current board would have had the final say on the final order of the resolutions.

It is entirely possible that the current board could have taken a position of placing the ND Team resolutions behind the resolutions of the OC group,particularly so because the OC Group want to change a Cottee led board for a Cottee led board.

That would have given the board and OC group an advantage with "the donkey vote" ( ie that any one voting simply goes down the list in the same order and stops when it gets to the ND Team boxes)

That again was not a position we were prepared to place the ND Team in.

Further and importantly a fight on 2 opposing fronts (or against the current board or an alternate Cottee led board) would not have assisted the shareholders.

May I respectfully suggest that you do in fact acquaint yourself with the time frames that are enshrined in the legislation. (Corporation Act 2001 Cth)

I am also confident that Option Co will not gain control of the board.

I simply cannot see the shareholders voting all three candidates onto  the board

Mr Bolkus, his well publicised commercial history on the internet is well documented and provides interesting reading. If Mr Bolkus is not elected to the board. then OptionCo simply would not have achieved any thing as they would not have the balance of power and more importantly would prevent the shareholders from gaining access to the funding that the ND Team has put in place.

It is only 2 weeks and we will know (unless they withdraw).  

But I suspect that the voting is already giving a fair indication and I invite the current board to invite OptionCo to act maturely.

One thing is very clear and that is that the shareholders WANT THE CURRENT BOARD GONE.

Please do not step from the fat into tho raging inferno, stop, think carefully and make an informed decision.

Let us do what the ND Team are doing, everything is going according to plan and soon the ND Team  will be in a position of informing the shareholders of their forward plans.

Kind regards

CB