smh article, page-5

I think we have to expect that Peter Hurley's exit is a given and I can understand an emotive (if not somewhat irrational) response which is to axe anyone else involved, regardless of whether they are the best person for the job or not.

I don't think there is any risk of him "not doing too much for the group" because an MBO failed. I'd give him a bit more credit for his character, drive, pride and self resepct than that. I doubt he rose to becoming a CEO because he sat on his hands everytime something went signficant against him, personally or professionally. On the contrary, he's been swimming up stream ever since he accepted the position.

Not acting in the best interests of shareholders and therefore being in breach of fiduciary duties is a serious accusation. I'm sure he would see it differently. He would probably argue that management's offer was fair and reasonable - but I accept that it's hardly surprising if shareholders see it differently. Is an MBO offer ever really enough or does someone smell always a rat?

Perhaps some solace can be taken from the fact that he was prepared to stand behind an MBO is testimony to his belief in the future of VPG?