When joining a BOD as a new independent director, invariably...

When joining a BOD as a new independent director, invariably said director needs at least 6 months (maybe 12) to really get up to speed with the affairs of the company. Sometime after that, it is fair to assess their performance as part of the "Board collective". The question is, if an ID is in fundamental disagreement with a particular, reasonably weighty decision (i.e. in the minority), should they resign their position? That is always a question of judgement, and invariably a difficult question. If, in this instance, post the decision, Jakob and Kim have bothered to give consideration and understanding to the dimensions of stupidity that was the design and implementation of the last capital raise, (as communicated by many shareholders, and by the market) then as a continuing shareholder, I would on balance prefer they remain as IDs. As inexperienced, first time company directors, it is arguable that the perversity of the cap raise was never going to be improved by anything they could have done, except a dual resignation from the BOD accompanied by a public statement giving their reasons. Such an action would come at a very substantial personal financial cost, and could potentially destroy their future career as a professional ID. Very few of us, given similar circumstances, would be prepared to make that sacrifice, especially if one has dependents and/or a mortgage! Beyond that, and directly to your question, if they read their "Board Packs" in their entirety, and they then turn up to all Board meetings prepared to question management on the company affairs, and skillfully and ongoingly evaluate the strategies proposed to further the company's interests going forward, they are doing their job. If they were to simply behave as lemmings for Paul Hopper, then they betray their professional duty. Oh to be a "fly on the wall"!!