7 questions lodged at 2024 Mayur Resources hybrid AGM

Q1. Thank you for offering shareholders online access to today's AGM but running a hybrid AGM with a physical presence is better governance. Will you do this next year. Also, I couldn't find a copy of last year's AGM webcast on your website. Out of respect for your 900+ retail shareholders, more than 90% of whom won't be watching this AGM live online, could you please undertake to publish a full copy of the AGM webcast on the investors relations section of your website. Even better, why not lodge a copy of the full AGM transcript with the ASX, including the debate on all resolutions, not just the formal addresses?

Answer: The chair Richard Pegum said they would take this on board.

Q2. Item 3 re-election of Chris Indermaur question: Our board comprises 6 men and only two independent directors, neither of whom is chair. This is poor governance for a company with a market capitalisation of $123 million today. Could the two independent directors, Chris Indermaur and William Wong, comment on what steps they take to represent and protect the company's 900 retail shareholders and whether they will push to move to a model with a majority of independents and an independent chair, including by supporting the appointment of at least one female independent directors before the 2025 AGM.

Answer: The chair Richard Pegum said they would take this on board.

Q3. Item 5. Why does Mr Werror need to be a voting director? Shouldn't he just be an executive of the company?

Answer: The chair Richard Pegum said Mr Werror provides a lot of value as a PNG local. .

Q4. Item 6. Audit appointment. Why do we have to vote on this every year based on Singapore rules. Shouldn't we just re-incorporate in Australia. What benefit do we get being incorporated in Singapore?

Answer: The chair Richard Pegum said they would take this on board.

Q5. Resolution 13: Richard Pegum performance rights: This is a very large allocation of performance rights to our executive chair. Did we get an external advice on the appropriateness of this and what does Richard think about stepping aside from the chairing role so that we can have better governance with an independent chair to oversee incentive grants to executives such as this one?

Answer: This item was chaired by Chris Indermaur who said this perspective would be taken on board.

Q6. Item 15: Chris Indermaur performance rights: How can we call Chris independent when he is on the same incentive schemes as the executives. Will Chris undertake to not seek any further incentive grants at future AGMs if he wants to keep calling himself an independent director?

Answer: The chair Richard Pegum said they would take this on board.

Q7. Item 18 question: There have been many substantial protest votes against resolutions like this during the recent AGM season. It is not good practice to allow a board to selectively place up to 25% of the company's shares to anyone they like over a 12 month period, diluting the existing shareholders without compensation for their lost property rights. What is our history of doing selective placements, why are we asking for this authority and has there been a substantial protest vote against this resolution? Placements favour big end of town investors at the expense of retail and even when retail are offered an SPP, the mast majority don't participate. The biggest victim in Australia's anything goes capital raising system is the retail shareholder who doesn't participate so please take this into account next time we do a capital raising?

Answer: The chair Richard Pegum said they would take this on board.

Copyright © 2024 The Mayne Report. All rights reserved

• share
  Share
  • 
    Facebook
  • 
    Twitter
  • email
    Email
  • print
    Print
  • link
    Copy Link
  • cancel
    Cancel