AFU It is /was the principal contract of the company. You are...

AFU

It is /was the principal contract of the company. You are not talking about 15% of funds going to a second manager. While the Board has legitimacy to run the company, one would have thought moving the most major contract in total, and to a different style of investment, would need more than approving just the new IMA. Maybe an understanding of the research that went into NAOS' selection. Why NAOS ? Is it because NAOS funds own some 15% of CGA? What other companies were tested? Why at 115 bp + performance fee when the earlier second manager was apparently at a lower fee, for a fraction of the FUM -- and particularly when that manager's performance during its 4 month life, and since, seems to have been above the new appointee. Also they were in the MICRO space that CTN shareholders opted for?
Your comment re CTN's fund belonging to CTN Shareholders - not CGA Well that died on 27th March 2017, when shareholders elected new Directors, either obviously not independent from CGA, or "supported by CGA and friends" ( as been reported by HC writers ). And now on the 5 man Board, they remain plus 2 Directors from the NAOS parent Board overseeing the NAOS management of the funds, and CGA replenishes its bank balance Mr Fitzpatrick must feel lonely amongst all these interested parties. Has he yet started to regret getting involved?
DYOR