I read on HC some time ago, that, on the 12th day of...

I read on HC some time ago, that, on the 12th day of Christmas, at the eleventh hour, legal papers were served on the Shareholders Action Group, I do not know more than that and I believe it to be true.

 

I googled shareholders meetings and found an ASIC page

 

"  Holding the board to account - general meeting requested by shareholders came up"

 

It mentions the fundamental principle of effective investor engagement to enhance the long-term performance of a company, a shareholders democratic right to question.

 

So the legal action engaged in by the board is in reality a blocking of shareholders democratic right to question and to prevent the outcome of the shareholders meeting.

 

As a clinical psychologist, it is not the actions that are of interest, but the intend behind the action and the perceived benefits that follow, there is always a carrot, why go through the trouble.

 

The company's legal action against SAG does not seem to be conducive for Shareholders.

 

The SAG ballot asked for the removal and replacement of the current board.

 

From this, the benefits of the legal action seemed to be on the boards' side, by preserving their positions, their legal financial entitlements and interests.

It prevents a healthy dialogue on the direction and future of the Company and stifles growth.

 

What ever the outcome of the meeting, the board is tainted by their actions to preserve their interests above shareholders and, being Australian born, I believe they should do the honourable thing, stepping down and make room for the sake and prosperity of the remaining shareholders.