TSK - TASK Group Holdings

[robbo24]

And at the end of the day is a whole host of things that are implied in a company constitution. They don't need a new one (at the moment).

For instance, the Companies Act 1993 in particular Part 5 of that Act.

And, of course, Section 3.1 (and other sections) of the NZAX Listing Rules incorporates everything into the constitution (including appendices).

[robbo24]

Wonder what the next reincarnation will be?

The wonders of the backdoor listing. I wonder if any of these companies had public aspirations of listing on the ASX too?

[robbo24]

You are all just wasting your breath worrying about the existing constitution...boring company secretarial stuff….

Boring, maybe, except for the fact that anyone worth their salt reads the company constitution before throwing their hard-earned money at a company.

Surely in the course of your extensive due diligence you considered your rights/obligations as a shareholder and the particular/unique rights/obligations of the directors of this company?

I suppose that is a bit boring and secretarial, isn't it? I guess perusing the flashing lights and bright colours of the VMob blog are much more exciting and agreeable to your strategies.

[mikeybycrikey]

You are all just wasting your breath worrying about the existing constitution, if you are really interested in boring company secretarial stuff….go read the ASX listing requirements.

http://www.asx.com.au/regulation/rul...ting-rules.htm

Winner for a legend…..I have to say I am really surprised by your comments on this?

The "boring secretarial stuff" might just be a side show but for some of the posters here, being sceptical of company statements and intentions is the only way to invest.

I've learnt the hard way that you should never take a companies statements at face value. Ever. Have you ever seen an annual report presenting anything other than a rosy picture of the future?

As we've seen in the post from Moosie (or was it BFG) a few months back, outlining the unsavoury history of the participants in this company, this should only increase the scepticism.

We should all remember that although this is being touted as a "ten-bagger" with the McDonalds deal and other big clients, they are a long way from making a profit and with big return comes big risk. This so-called ten-bagger could shut down over night were it to lose McDonalds as a client.

For such an early stage company with a product that we can't really even see for ourselves (what value are they really adding for customers that can't be added by another company?) there should be much more scepticism and hard questioning and way less cheerleading.

[robbo24]

...touted as a "ten-bagger"...

Pretty sure those were my words. The context being that an ASX listing would introduce those trader bots into the mix and regardless of the actual value of the company it would take off

I like the short term VML chart. I see the slow stochastic has bottomed out and bouncing up again. A failed retest of 1.9 cents (circa SMA 50) and also a point of strong support. I like how the RSI is above 50. I like how MACD is above 0. I like how OBV is ticking upwards again.

Let's pretend I bought in at 2 cents after selling at 2.5 cents, just for conversation sake

[Baa_Baa]

Thanks robbo, this is precisely why I have been trying to get to the heart of our rights as shareholders, to appoint board members, to vote on matters, etc etc. Good that it has raised some discussion, it's clear as mud. I like the boring admin stuff when it comes to understanding my rights.

You've cleared up that there isn't a constitution for VMob Group Ltd per se, only the one inherited from MTG 2005 (which appears woefully inadequate for shareholders) however bringing that together the Companies Act and the NZAX listing rules, makes for a very complex and unweildy compensation for a lack of a decent Constitution.

Hands up who thoroughly understands their rights as shareholders now, given that others think it is so important as well, in fact imply they wouldn't have invested without knowing?

BAA

Boring, maybe, except for the fact that anyone worth their salt reads the company constitution before throwing their hard-earned money at a company.

Surely in the course of your extensive due diligence you considered your rights/obligations as a shareholder and the particular/unique rights/obligations of the directors of this company?

I suppose that is a bit boring and secretarial, isn't it? I guess perusing the flashing lights and bright colours of the VMob blog are much more exciting and agreeable to your strategies.

[robbo24]

Hands up who thoroughly understands their rights as shareholders now, given that others think it is so important as well, in fact imply they wouldn't have invested without knowing?

Reality is that the vast bulk of shareholders do not know their rights as shareholders.

The Companies Act 1993 is the first place to look. Parts 7 & 8, in particular, if you want to kick up a stink for your beloved directors.

The VML constitution is barely any different from the default provisions under the Act. NZX and NZAX Listing Rules imply certain provisions serve to provide some degree of uniformity so that, to some extent, investors don't need to read every last detail of a company constitution to know their fundamental rights and obligations. However, that is not to say the intricacies of one company's constitution makes it better or worse than another's

As an extra for experts, there are several universities around the country that offer wonderful 300 level law papers on topics such as Companies Law and Securities Law.

[Harvey Specter]

Reality is that the vast bulk of shareholders do not know their rights as shareholders.

Even with 1m shares in this bad boy, rights are kind of irrelevant as you have no power. Statutory protections are your best bet as you will never have voting power while the register is tight with insiders.

[robbo24]

Even with 1m shares in this bad boy, rights are kind of irrelevant as you have no power. Statutory protections are your best bet as you will never have voting power while the register is tight with insiders.

Demonstrate a good reason why your idea is better than the status quo and you can make the AGM all yours.

There's nothing to stop the majority of shareholders agreeing with you even if you are a minority.

It's all there in the Act, nobody ever bothers to use their shareholder rights though

[Baa_Baa]

Even the basic stuff is unclear, i.e. even which sections of the MTG'05 constitution (if in force, and not overridden by the Act or NZAX listing rules) are in play, for example; advance notification of shareholder meetings; % of shareholders that can force an issue; whether shareholders are notified or vote on directors appointments; term of appointment of directors; time from announce results to the shareholders annual meeting .. and so on.

So getting back to my original point, a new Constitution would be helpful to inform investors because as it stands, confusion reigns and no-one so far seems to know or be able to express the rules of the company or the rights of shareholders.

BAA

Demonstrate a good reason why your idea is better than the status quo and you can make the AGM all yours.

There's nothing to stop the majority of shareholders agreeing with you even if you are a minority.

It's all there in the Act, nobody ever bothers to use their shareholder rights though