Sinister,

Again,its a matter of choice for our BOD again. The BOD has the choice to recognize that the White Circular may have been misleading, and in due process, should question the position the Chair took at the meeting. If the BOD,s also feels the material was misleading on their part, to be accountable and unbiased, they should immediately render the White Votes invalid. Perhaps by not doing this, it would be considered a breach of fudiciary duty by the whole BOD. A breach of Fudiciary duty as such, should not allow them to stand office. They had ample time, 8 months, to correct or clarify what I consider misleading information, to no avail. The Chair and BOD had the power to throw away the Green Votes, so they definitely had/have the power to render the White Proxy invalid as well. From today even, there is no waiting period, the announcment could be made at any minute, and unless the considered misleading statements are not corrected nor clarified, it suggests to me that the BOD are well aware of those statements and that any attempt not to clarify or correct, may show an abuse of power and a biased position from the BOD that is not in the shareholders best interests.

If the info/profile of Robert Krause is clarified, corrected or reiterated, I will be fine with that, if the statements made are ascertained. If not, I have to consider the statements as misleading, and as my voting rights in the company, ask for the White Proxy to be rendered invalid by the current BOD. By not taking action, I would also suggest that all court monies be paid by the individual directors themselves, whereas they had the opportunity to not put those considered misleading statements in the circular and should be accountable and responsible for their actions, not the shareholders. Any court costs from the AGM forward should be picked up by the BOD, not the dissidents and not the shareholders, for it may have been the BOD,s inaction that allowed the court costs to be incurred from our treasury and from the dissidents.

This is not a competent and just way to run a company, and if the regulators agree with this type of actions, then perhaps it leaves them incompetent as well. And when it comes down to protection of the shareholders, is it fact, or is it just an illusion. I have not seen any mitigation of risk towards the shareholders yet by authorities, even so they have the power to do so, so therefore, I consider the regulators negligent for not intervening here and upholding their policy of protection to the shareholders.

IMO