Ann: Requisition for Shareholders Meeting to Rest, page-113

re: Ann: Requisition for Shareholders Meeting... They probably proposed Wilkins to stay so that they could protect their shareholding. Not that I would follow that, but would throw that out there as a possibility.

I'm not angry at the change in directors. I'm hopeful but doubtful they will do a better job based on their level of experience.

What I am angry about is the way this was done. The quote has been used - the 9% plus other large shareholders requested they leave, yet no names or anything are mentioned. It obviously annoyed TD et all enough, that they said stuff it, and walked away. I suppose their own reasons are their own reasons. However this should have been put to the vote, note discussed secretly, and then a decision made before put to EGM, or notice. of EGM issued.

Now we don't really have a choice do we. Can't say no, as then we'd have no board of directors. Can't say yes as we don't know they new directors and their plans. What the hell do we do?

I probably would have 'conditionally' voted my support of the old directors, and hopefully along with everyone else, get accross to them that we need to know what is happening.

The way this has happened just sickens me, and reminds me of the faceless men in the labour party who shafted Rudd!