posted Dec 23, 2010 6:01 PM by Tyler Durden
Both Magdee and Innes affidavit support winding up of the ASA. They are arguing that the ASA is a fractured group and that the future does not look bright. Mr Innes indicates he feels that the majority of the board of directors support winding up of the ASA.
It seems odd to me that the membership would not have a say in the continuation of their own association. Describing the SGM petition as evidence of continued acrimony within the ASA is strange. It is not a reflection of acrimony within the ASA but is evidence that the membership were serious about the need to have a clean slate of directors. It is a reflection that the membership is clearly dissatisfied with how the current Board of Directors is conducting themselves.
It is obvious that the decision of Justice Tilleman has been interpreted quite differently by some than by others. The current ASA Board seems to interpret the statement that both SGM's are a nullity to mean that Justice Tilleman ruled that the 'substance' of the SGM was not valid; he actually indicated that the SGM's were a nullity because of a lack of quorum, concerns over the handling of delegate forms and a concern that the President called the meeting rather than the Board. Nothing the Justice wrote indicated that the resolutions raised by the membership were invalid.
The Bowie and Matemisz affidavits argue for not postponing the AGM
and going forward with interim financial statements. They site the fact that the
AGMs previous have proceeded without audited statements. Mr Butler also
provides evidence that in the absence of the Director of Finance the
staff had made progress on the budget for 2011.
Added 2010.12.21
- Ivan Magdee Affidavit
Added 2010.12.21 - Joel Butler Affidavit
Added 2010.12.22
- Danny Bowie Affidavit
Added 2010.12.22 - John Matemisz Affidavit
Added 2010.12.22 - Colin Innes supplemental Affidavit
|
|
|