4 questions lodged at 2026 Apiam Animal Health (AHX) hybrid scheme meeting
February 3, 2026
Below is the text of the 4 written questions submitted at the 25 minute Apiam Animal Health (AHX) hybrid scheme meeting held in Melbourne and via Lumi at 11am on February 3 to approve a takeover by private equity firm Adamantem. See 454 page scheme book which was released on December 12 and this update the day before the meeting disclosing that 65 shareholders representing 40.8m shares had opted for the scrip option and would likely be accepted as this was below the 24% maximum. The market cap is $160m. The proxies were disclosed early in the formal addresses with no meaningful opposition and the poll results finished with support from 99.9% of voted stock and 95.76% on the headcount metric with 226 in favour, 10 against and 3 abstaining. I voted against online during the meeting.
Q1. On what grounds under the Corporation Act is the chair attempting to impose a 2 question limit on individual shareholders at this important scheme meeting and will this first question challenging the two question limit be included in my two question limit?
Answer: The moderator posted this response via the Lumi platform but the question wasn't read out: "The Chair's general powers allow him to apply requirements to facilitate the smooth running of the meeting. This question will not be counted in your 2 questions [and if there is time at the end of the meeting, we can address further questions]." Given I was the only shareholder asking questions, it would have been embarrassing to reject one of these next 3.
Q2. Thank you for disclosing the proxies early to the ASX along with the chair address. Well done on receiving strong support on both metrics but the head count of just 220 proxy votes seems low. How many shareholders were eligible to vote and what sort of solicitation campaign did we run to get out the retail vote. Are there many voting shareholders in the room today?
Answer: The Apiam question wrangler butchered this missive on the retail turnout. Chair Andrew Vizard (brother of Steve) said they directly contacted the top 50 and received a few questions through the retail information line. Then again, 220 out of 1,555 is above average and including the additional 19 votes at the meeting, the turnout was 15.4% of the register. Listen to audio of exchange via Twitter.
Q3. Have or will any of the directors be paid additional "exertion payments" for all their hard work on the scheme or will they continue to be paid the same monthly fees as was reported in the last remuneration report up until the deal closes?
Answer: The chair Andrew Vizard explained that he had received $40,000 in exertion payments and some of the other directors $28,000, as was spelt out in the 454 page scheme document. Don't like this. Managing a takeover should be just part of the job. They don't receive less fees when board activity is quiet. Listen to audio of exchange via Twitter.
Q4. Why is a Bendigo-based company that is holding a scheme meeting in Melbourne running this scheme through the NSW Supreme Court?
Answer: How charitable of Apiam chair Andrew Vizard to let me ask this bonus 3rd written question at the 25 minute hybrid scheme meeting. He said the lawyers (Freehills) recommended the NSW Supreme Court without saying why, even though he said most of the 1,555 shareholders are in Melbourne. Listen to audio of exchange via Twitter.
Copyright © 2026 The Mayne Report. All rights reserved
