Snakes Alive!, page-3

AndrewGregs, you are entitled to your opinions but I bet you haven't called him either to test whether your opinions are right or wrong.

I just don't think shareholders should be held to ransom. And if you are not outraged then maybe that says something about you.

Have you ever seen that put to shareholders before?

Let's also unpack this.

The Board stated "It is submitted that the shareholders vote in favour of the options as defined. The limited base remuneration of the directors in assuming many executive responsibilities (at a significant saving to previous year operating expenses) has been accepted in the knowledge that outcome based rewards may be earned on achieving key progress milestones. " Bottom of page 9.

This is completely contradictory to the Board's assertion that the options are (mostly) not incentive based and hence further flies in the face of the ASX Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations (4th Edition).

Where it states, under Principle 8, that “it is generally acceptable for non-executive directors to receive securities as part of their remuneration to align their interests with the interests of other security holders. However, nonexecutive directors generally should not receive options with performance hurdles attached or performance rights as part of their remuneration as it may lead to bias in their decision-making and compromise their objectivity.”

So after first trying to deny these options were part of their remuneration package as well as trying deny that the options are incentive based (the company claimed Tranche 1 and Tranche 3 were not incentive based), then admitting above that they are outcome based by achieving milestones aka incentives. So the company is happy to fly in the face of the advice from the ASX.

Added to this the company has not provided a valuation of the options. No valuation has been presented by the Board of the proposed options, Resolutions 12-17. Shareholders are not fully informed on the value of the options they are voting on.The Corporations Act (http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s219.html) requires that shareholders are fully informed when voting on resolutions “to decide whether or not it is in the company’s interest to pass the proposed resolution”. Whilst the number of options and their terms are set out in the Notice of Annual General meeting/Proxy Form an ordinary shareholder would not know how to value the options and thus not know the extent of the proposed magnanimity. Shareholders are not fully informed on the value of the proposed options and therefore not informed about the cost to the company in granting them and therefore shareholders are not capable of assessing if the proposed options, Resolutions 12-17, are in the company’s interest or not. And then the company wants to hold shareholders to ransom if they don't get their odious egregious options.

Don't vote for the options.

Email directors and let them know how much this stinks!