- Joined
- 22 May 2008
- Posts
- 758
- Reactions
- 0
Furthermore, if Hutson is truly so averse to 'extreme disappointment' for unit holders, she could have so easily simply forewarned the convenors that she intended to enforce clauses 10.7 to 10.10 of the consititution. Clause 10.1: "The Chairman of the Board is entitled to take the chair at every general meeting." It seems that instead of liaising with the convenors prior to the meeting to ensure it proceeded smoothly to avoid an "extremely disappointing" outcome for "unit holders who have chosen to participate", the Hutson lead WC was busy applying to the court to stop the meeting.
Again, I can't find the consistency between this Hutson lead WC conduct and Hutson's words quoted in the June 22 NSX announcement "it is my view that the ultimate decision making body is the members in general meeting. I look forward to Unitholders having the opportunity to consider the resolutions put forward in the notice of 16 May 2011."
Why did Hutson insist on taking the Chair? The constitution says that Hutson was "entitled to take the chair". The constitution does not say Hutson MUST take the chair. Does it? Couldn't the RE and Board just as easily discharged their duties by offering their opinions to the Chair rather than actually Chairing the meeting themselves? They were offered to address the meeting. Wouldn't this have been sufficient to discharge their duties to the investors?
Any WC supporters out there have a reason? Are there any of you left? If so, you're being very quiet?
Any more comments from the AFR?
On a lighter note the band Extreme had a hit with 'More Than Words'.
Again, I can't find the consistency between this Hutson lead WC conduct and Hutson's words quoted in the June 22 NSX announcement "it is my view that the ultimate decision making body is the members in general meeting. I look forward to Unitholders having the opportunity to consider the resolutions put forward in the notice of 16 May 2011."
Why did Hutson insist on taking the Chair? The constitution says that Hutson was "entitled to take the chair". The constitution does not say Hutson MUST take the chair. Does it? Couldn't the RE and Board just as easily discharged their duties by offering their opinions to the Chair rather than actually Chairing the meeting themselves? They were offered to address the meeting. Wouldn't this have been sufficient to discharge their duties to the investors?
Any WC supporters out there have a reason? Are there any of you left? If so, you're being very quiet?
Any more comments from the AFR?
On a lighter note the band Extreme had a hit with 'More Than Words'.