richard cottee, page-16

Klaas,

I have read every announcement this company has put out since it was listed on the ASX, and quite a few prior to listing. I was an investor with CTP before it became listed.

Now as you correctly state, the announcement said that his appointment as Director and CEO was subject to shareholder approval.

That approval has not yet occurred.

However, I think the statement is wrong. Shareholders are required to approve directors (at the next general meeting following their appointment), but the directors appoint a CEO, and the position of CEO does not require shareholder approval, in my understanding. This is why RC was able to start yesterday, ahead of any approval. Also the board is currently full, so RC cannot be put onto the board before the EGM unless someone else resigns.

But, I am intrigued as to what this has to do with my post.

I wrote:
"CP's EGM Resolutions did not include removing RC as a director, because he is not a director at the moment."

Which is of course, correct. You would be aware that there is a resolution in the 2nd EGM to instate RC as a director. In fact we currently have 6 directors, which is the maximum the company is allowed to have according to it's constitution. RC cannot join the board until a place is vacated.

I also wrote:
"However, a journalist took that to mean that CP does not oppose RC's appointment."

CP's resolutions could not contain anything about the removal of RC from the board, as he is not currently a member of the board.

At this moment the board is: Askin, Heugh, Faull, Dunmore, Whittle and Elsholz - a full compliment of 6.

and:
"In the same set of resolutions there was nothing about JH, but that's because JH is a board member at the moment. But obviously CP wants JH to be on the board and to be CEO."

JH is currently a board member. You are aware there is a resolution in EGM to remove him from that position, and another resolution in EGM to remove him and replace him.

CP had no need to mention JH in his resolutions, as JH is currently a board member. CP only stated his intent to remove all other CURRENT board members.

Klaas,
Perhaps you see the value in CP's injuncture this morning. The EGMs are a mess, with resolutions all over each other that don't seem to make sense. Why do we need 2 resolutions to remove JH on the same day? They are a complete mess, with many of CP's resolutions likely to be invalid by the time his EGM is held.

We need a judge to sort this out. One EGM. One set of resolutions.