As someone who sees a director as a custodian of the governance...

As someone who sees a director as a custodian of the governance process; this has got me very, very annoyed. To voice a counter opinion in the boardroom is one thing (to be encouraged), but to actively interfere with a transaction without the knowledge of other directors is inexcusable in my opinion. Roll out the sporting analogies....blue form for me.

From the announcement: "The loss of confidence in Andrew Purcell is the result of:

(a) what the Recommending Directors consider to be a lack of transparency on the part of Mr Purcell with the Board, in particular in relation to requests regarding disclosure of possible associated interests and disclosure of possible conflicts of interest, with some of those requests from the Board going completely unanswered; and

(b) Mr Purcell’s failure to disclose his discussions with counterparties to potential transactions to the Board until after those discussions took place, which in at least one instance resulted in Mr Purcell’s breach of the Company’s negotiation protocol in relation to a significant transaction the Company was considering and which interfered with that potentially significant transaction. The negotiation protocol was specifically put in place by a unanimous board resolution to protect that significant transaction."