I understand the anger etc. I am not overly happy but I only have a very small parcel.
Firstly, this may not be as bad as first appears. I think that the speculation is not helpful. Anyway, I guess that is what people will do when they do not have the facts.
Where you will catch these guys is via the Corporations Act 2001.
I suggest a well-worded letter be sent to the company that asks questions referring the Corporations Act 2001.
1. S 128 and s. 129 of that Act notes that people dealing with the company are entitled to make certain assumptions about the company.
One of those assumptions is that the constitution of the company has been complied with - s 124(1)
Has anyone read the constitution? I can track it down and read it - just don't have much time at the moment.
2. S 129(4) A person may assume that the officers and agents of the company properly perform their duties to the company
Has this Director (and board) performed his / their duties properly? I would argue that there are legitimate questions that can be asked in relation to these sections of the Act. However, I am not in possession of all of the facts.
Just a start but companies do not like getting letters that are based upon sections of the Corporations Act. They simply dismiss rants from shareholders. However, a carefully worded letter that refers to their legal obligations as company directors is another matter entirely. After all, no one wants to live in Majorca - they just end up there because their choices close out pretty quickly.
Just my view.
And for what it's worth - I have seen some references to defamation. It does always pay to be cautious. However, a defence of 'honest opinion' is available under s. 31 of the Defamation Act (2005). All states have the same defamation laws. A defence under s 31 can only be defeated on the specific grounds noted in that section of the Act.
