posted Dec 14, 2010, 11:13 PM by Tyler Durden
This post includes a link to exhibit #2 from Colin Innes's Affidavit.
Call me naive but I was under the impression that when swearing an Affidavit the person doing so was swearing the 'whole truth'. Those who have looked at the time line version of the SGM petition will notice that I had commented that the petition appeared to have been updated to include signatures from Tri-County and SPDSA. It is apparent from this email that Mr Innes was aware of the addition of Tri-County and SPDSA to the signatory list.
I hope Mr Innes is questioned as to why exhibit #2 of his Affidavit does not include the additional signatures. I am left wondering if this is an attempt to 'paint a picture for the Courts' that support for the SGM is dwindling. The fact is that it is not incumbent on the members filing the petition to prove that they have enough support to pass the resolutions listed. They need only have 7 signatories to call the meeting.
To paraphrase:
- The
board is seeking an order that the ASA AGM be
rescheduled to a date not later than the last day of June 2011
- If
not then they are asking the court to waive the necessity of presenting
the ASA's budget or its audited financial statements at the Jan 2011 AGM
- Seeking
advice from the courts regarding the SGM petition.
Essentially, the board is indicating that there is insufficient time to
prepare the budget and audited financial statements for the January 2011 AGM.
Additionally, they are informing the court that the ASA board was
served with another petition calling for a SGM, which they believe is
not in accordance with the By-Laws of the ASA and constitutes an abuse
of process.
|
|
|
