3 questions lodged at 2025 NSX Ltd virtual scheme meeting
November 9, 2025
Below is the text of the 3 written questions submitted at the 23 minute NSX Ltd (NSX) noon Sydney time virtual scheme meeting via the Lumi platform to approve a takeover by the owners of the Canadian Stock Exchange. Market cap around $20m. Proxies were disclosed early with these formal addresses with strong support for the scheme. Was the only shareholder asking questions and these 3 videos are some of the funniest you'll see at an online AGM.
Q1. Thank you for disclosing the proxies early to our competitors at the ASX along with the formal addresses. Only 87 shareholders bothered to vote by proxy. How many registered shareholders do we have and what sort of proxy solicitation campaign did we run to get out the vote?
Answer: when he finally got to answering this question after an excruciating delay with question wrangler Scott attempting to message this question to the chair, Tim Hart failed to read the question but answered it saying that NSX has 703 shareholders, only 36 normally vote (that's very precise), so he was happy with the turnout of 87 voters and Boardroom had contacted the top 50. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q2. How many of our current executives and directors have entered into formal contracts with the Canadian buyer to provide services after the deal closes? Also, does the chair agree with the theory that this deal would have been less likely to happen if Donald Trump hadn't gone hostile against Canada, encouraging more collaboration between non-US western countries and companies, which is what this cross-border takeover deal is?
Answer: After another farcical delay, question wrangler Scott ended up reading this one out himself. The chair Tim Hart said only the CEO had signed a contract to stay on and all of the directors would be exiting. He also said the deal had nothing to do with Donald Trump and was more about a lack of capital. He and Max Cunningham, the former listings manager at the ASX, had approached the Canadians for capital and they decided they wanted to buy the whole thing. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q3. On what legal basis is the chair imposing a 2 question limit on individual shareholders at this meeting? Is he not aware that the Corporation Act requires companies to provide all shareholders with a reasonable opportunity to ask questions at public company shareholders meetings. If no other shareholders ask questions today, a 2 question limit on the sole questioner is unreasonable and arguably illegal? Please don't censor what is my third and final question.
Answer: Only threw this one in because was annoyed the chair put a 2 question limit into his preamble. After pugnacious chair Tim Hart initially declared he'd stick with the 2 question limit, after another excruciating delay we then had a farcical back and forth where this third question challenging the 2 question limit was sort of read out but then they acted as if I was angling for a third question when this was the third question. Watch these hilarious exchanges via Twitter.
Copyright © 2025 The Mayne Report. All rights reserved
