Firstly, I'm not sure how removing a Chairman (who, as a...

Firstly, I'm not sure how removing a Chairman (who, as a generality, should be accountable for a company's poor performance) is taking control of the company.

Secondly, to your question, I've followed Metgasco and Molopo pretty closely. In the case of Metgasco, shareholders have doubled their money since their involvement (it too was a disaster case with litigation etc when they got involved). In the case of Molopo... well that's pretty unique as the management they were trying to throw out literally stole all the money before they could get in. Now they're in, they're trying to get it back for shareholders. I'm pretty sure their activist campaign on Molopo was about stopping the previous board stealing money before it happened... which turned out to be totally correct. Both initiatives seem to be incredibly shareholder friendly.

Is there an example where the corporate raiders have destroyed shareholder value by their activism?

I'm just not sure where all the negativity comes from towards shareholders using their rights to make changes (other than from self-serving comments from incumbent boards). It's all part of efficient markets. Look how good it has been for the Yowie share price thus far.

I'm not going to vote at the upcoming meeting.