why did he do it?, page-2

Well said Alfredo9

There are FIVE full pages in the Annual Report devoted to the six Principles of Corporate Governance. PPN can save a bit of money on printing costs by leaving those pages out of the 2013 report after the CEO's statement that all the four shareholder candidates had to offer was Corporate Governance and PPN paid a bloke to do that for them. Wha-tttt ????????

The essence of good Corporate Governance is to allow Directors the freedom to advance the interests of ALL their shareholders but to do that within a framework of effective accountability and transparency.

PPN Shareholders are neither 'milking cows' nor 'cannon fodder'. We are part owners with a responsibility to ourselves to ensure that we are well informed on all issues. We need to take an interest in the composition of our Board of Directors and not just accept anyone nominated to entrench the CEO in his job.

We need to look very carefully at the concentration of decision making power within PPN and insist that there are sufficient independent directors on the board to assess the performance of our CEO and establish policies to ensure that PPN complies with the law and conforms to the highest standards of financial and ethical behaviour.

PPN shareholders need to be vocal about their rights as Shareholders. Don't be passive victims. As part owners, you deserve respect from your CEO, a bloke who is your employee.

My legal team have taken a very close look at various self serving decisions made during the 10 year history of PPN including the amendments to APPENDIX A of the PPN constitution whereby Trimble was able to convert all of his shares without incurring the Daily Planet rental increase specified in the old APPENDIX A.

Apparently a Board of independent directors acting in the Company's best interests, could rectify this situation by simply increasing the Horne St rent to what it should have been had the B shares been converted under the old Appendix A to the Constitution. Fat chance that the current board would consider doing that!

I have been advised that shareholders may have a case under PART 2F.1 [sections 232 to 235] of the Corporations Act 2001 - OPPRESSIVE CONDUCT OF AFFAIRS, otherwise known as MINORITY SHAREHOLDER OPPRESSION.

I recall seeing a newspaper cartoon years ago, possibly "Hagar The Horrible", which said something along the lines:

"Master, Master, the Shareholders are revolting.
Yes I know, they have always been REVOLTING , especially that old bloke, who doesn't know anything, who told me to sit down and shut up at the general meeting".