To date nobody has questioned the manner in which the company carried out the AGM. It was decided not to hold an actual attended, but a virtual, meeting. This in itself is not unusual because of Covid and difficulty/expense in getting people together.

However, when a virtual AGM takes place it is quite normal practice these days to have a Q&A allocated time period. But, in my experience, this is generally done, not just by having to email/type a question on line, but rather also having the ability to actually personally ask a question by a phone link. This means that any shareholder can ask a question(s) that have arisen over the past 12 months that have not been addressed. It is the one opportunity for shareholders to ask questions and voice concerns. It's called democracy.

In this instance it was announced that the meeting would last about 2 hours. It lasted just over an hour ! If verbal questions had been possible then 2 hours would have been fully utilized.

I also understand that not all typed/written questions asked were answered. Those that were answered maybe could have raised a further point or question, but there was no chance to ask a further question. i.e. to have/get a full response to the issue in question.

T.M. decided which questions Management would answer. This perhaps could be considered a form of censorship of shareholders, which may be unacceptable to those who have ,or had, genuine and serious questions, and who desire to know what is going on in more detail.

Shareholders are joint owners of the company and deserve the right to have full voice at AGM's.