written to mr askin seeking his resignation., page-62

uio,

"It is frivolous to believe that the courts would rule the meeting invalid on what is clearly an oversight, and one which is unlikely to have misled the shareholders who elected to give the Chairman their proxies.
The Board has declared clear positions on the issues the subject of the voting, and I put it to you that anyone aware enough to bother sending their proxies to the Chairman would also be under no illusion that he would be voting these in accordance with the Board's recommendations."

Totally agreed, and also, what of the superfluous resolutions, 7, 8 and 9 at 2pm Meeting, ... Philis, Goodall and Cockcroft ?

I would suspect, because of the "mind boggling" changes, where these nominees had withdrawn, but were still on the resolutions agenda, members that were proxy voting, would, (from their perspective), have allowed the Chairman to vote in the company's best interest.
Who really, would have read the small printed statement, or taken any notice of it at the bottom of the page, ... except those wanting to clutch at straws or cause trouble for CTP ?

RAVI