There is always the option or possibility for the Judge that made the ruling on the proxy case, to overturn or recinde his decision, in light of new evidence. I consider the Robert Krause credentials to be misleading and perhaps enough to render Managements Circular invalid as well. I havent read the full decision and Judges reasoning, but I do believe the mentioned above should be, if hasn,t, taken into consideration. As a Judge is supposed to take an unbiased position in any decision making, he needs all evidence at his disposal. If his decision was made on the only evidence that the Green Teams circular was misleading, how can he leave evidence out of his decision is managements circular is misleading as well?

Also, the Judge, imo, should have clearly recognized a conflict of interest when the CEO took the Chair in the incident. It totally reflects the conflict of interest, when less than 10 % voted for this management, which includes the chair, and that 90% voted to relieve them of their duty. An independent arbitrator should have been appointed by the Judge to resolve this matter. Perhaps the Judges decision only allowed further entrenchment of management, which contradicts the best interests of shareholders?

IMO