shame! simon ehrenfeld shame!, page-2

"After the motion to remove Simon Ehrenfeld was put to the vote and failed, Mr Steinert said that the disallowed proxies would not have changed the result and said he would allow supporters of Mr Bretherton to inspect the proxies."

Sounds very reasonable to me. The shareholders wanted to keep Mr. Ehrenfeld in place. The other Mr. Ehrenfeld, Danny, did not succeed in convincing enough shareholders to get rid of his brother. Even if the invalid proxies were counted, the result was the same. Danny's lawyers were granted permission to inspect the proxies, which they did.

Family feud, posing as a "shareholder revolt." Sad. Let's move on.