Hi NATOs, it's quite interesting. My understanding is the Mike Elliot was elected as an Independent Director, here it is from his appointment
"pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Michael Elliott to the Board as an independent Non-Executive Director. "
Now here is a definition of an "Independent Director"
"
An independent director is a non-executive director who does not have any kind of relationship with the company that may affect the independence of his/her judgment. An independent director should not have been a partner or executive director of the auditors/lawyers/consultants of the company in preceding three years or should not hold 2% or more of shares of the company. In this article, we look at the process for appointment of an independent director in a company."
https://www.indiafilings.com/learn/independent-director/
The question I have is that now Mr Elliot effectively holds loans to the company, Bridging Options as well as being a large shareholder then do you think he still meets the definition of being an Independent Director and if not should he step down from his position as an Independent Director so that the Company can appoint someone more "Independent"
To me the companies objective was to have more independent directors, though it seems Mr Elliot's financial arrangements seem to be increasing with the company, loans at 12% interest etc thus I question whether he can effectively fulfil the role of a truely Independent Director.
I wonder how the companies review is going on the subject of Independent Directors
"
Within this framework and following consultation with Shareholder Groups, the Board will undertake a full review in line with International Best Practice including, within a 12-month period;
- The appointment of a majority of Independent Non-Executive Directors,
- A reduction of the number of Executive Directors,
- Splitting the role of Chairman into Non-Executive and CEO "
https://hotcopper.com.au/documentdownload?id=uOMxKKzFkiWRTLKhOROKAxjvTDYD4gq7zBSZt/xtke92GA==
Perhaps one of the recommendations should be to remove Mr Elliot from his role of "Independent" Director?
What's people's thoughts, given increasing financial arrangements can he be truely seen as an "Independent Director", which I believe was the supposed motivation of the Large shareholder group in having him elected.
Should he resign if he no longer considers himself to fit the role of "Independent Director"?
Thanks
(20min delay)