You wrote in bold - At a time when Cynata is collapsing under...

You wrote in bold -

At a time when Cynata is collapsing under the weight of the market perception ' manana manana'..or if ever indeed!!

I take that to be a reference to the present time - correct?

The last thing we would need is a class action or EGM.

And EGM, an extraordinary general meeting, by definition, has at least one special order of business.

Your position that it is that it is the last thing we (by we I presume you mean shareholders together in their common interest) need seems to suggest that you've gamed out all possibly special orders of business and compared all the possible EGMs with their special orders of business with other things that might be done (and nothing is always a possibility) and you've ruled out EGMs.

I can't make sense of that position by you. Why would you want to take the option of an EGM (so all EGMs with all possible special orders of business) off the table? How does that help you?

This seems close-minded of you to me to even your own interests. It could be that other shareholders that you might not personally like very much have in common with you a desire for things to be done differently and better in terms of having their existing shareholder better stewarded.

Something as simple as a set of email addresses could bring a set of shareholders together to discuss things that are in their common interests. Maybe better KPIs? Maybe an independent audit of deals that are commercial in confidence? There is a lot of things that might potentially be of interest to a majority of shareholders who aren't board members and so aren't benefiting from insider status.

By ruling out 249D activity - categorically (which it what you seem to have done) you seem to have limited your own options. Ruling out options seems to be helping divide and conquer with you being amongst those conquered.