Samuel Terry opposes K2 appointment, page-6

I agree with STAM and will vote no to K2for my 2.5m URF units.

As they say: develop a” proposal to create an internalisedRE of URF, which would be stapled to existing URF units. URF unitholders wouldbecome owners of the RE, able to vote for directors of the RE and attend annualmeetings of the RE company.

That’s definitely the best strategy to pursue: it’s so blindinglyobvious that it is amazing it has not been raised before. I assume that E&P has not investigatedthis possibility, but it’s hard to tell as they say nothing about the alternativesthat they have considered. The only possible negative aspects might be stamp duty costs or adverse taxconsequences- but I doubt it and those would be very easy to check immediately.

K2’s proposed RE fee is0.075% of URF’s gross assets, thus about $765,000 pa + recovery of most costs. By comparison with the huge fees paid to Brooksvillethat is chicken feed. It should easily bepossible to run URF as an internalised stapled entity for less than that. Even if it cost more (highly unlikely) it wouldbe worth paying to have complete independence from REs etc that have conflictsof interest. STAM is absolutely rightthat we need a board that is fully accountable, and only to unitholders.