4 questions lodged at 2026 Frontier Digital Ventures (FDV) hybrid AGM
May 27, 2026
Below is the text of the 4 written questions submitted at the Frontier Digital Ventures (FDV) 4pm AEST hybrid (questions not voting) AGM in KL on May 27, 2026. Registered the day before when livestream announcement was made to ASX. Gave the late advice a slap on Twitter. See notice of meeting detailing 13 resolutions. Market cap $157m on AGM day. No protest votes last year, unlike this year when the placement capacity expansion request was defeated. Accumulated losses of $102.2m and net assets of $105m as of December 31, 2025. The proxies were not disclosed early and no formal address was released to the ASX.
Q1. What is the logic of our business being incorporated in Malaysia, as opposed to Australia. Why are we primarily listed on the ASX? Would it make sense to redomicile to Australia or is that now even less attractive after the recent anti-investor tax changes proposed in the recent Australian Federal Budget."
Answer: First Digital Ventures is an unusual beast. The brass are based in Malaysia and it is domiciled in Australia but a tax resident in Malaysia. However Lucas Elliot said that is under review and the Chalmers tax grab will be a factor. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q2. Could Nikki Warburton comment on her director record on capital raisings as it related to her treatment of retail shareholders? Has she ever been involved in an SPP?
Answer: Nikki Warburton (better half of James Warburton ) has an incredible CV but wasn't up for for articulating her record on retail treatment in capital raisings at the FDV AGM, partly because question wrangler Phillip Hains butchered it. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q3. When advising public companies, what is Phillip Hain's approach to treatment of retail shareholders in capital raisings. Has he done many placements with no SPP for retail participation?
Answer: Having heard the earlier Nikki Warburton exchange, Phil got in early, riffing about his approach to capital raisings in his stump speech. Still lobbed a question, and he sounded even more enthusiastic about advancing the rights of retail shareholders. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q5. Has resolution 9 (request for an extra 10% placement capacity) been defeated?
Answer: Because they were racing through the agenda and only flashing up the proxies each time, this was a very rushed question after saw it had been defeated with 28% against. Rather than acknowledging the defeat and perhaps being humble, director and question wrangler Phillip Hains launched into a big history lesson. We know the history, Phil! Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q4. Given the defeat of resolution 9, will you undertake not to ask for this authority next year? It's better to raise capital pro rata.
Answer: Sadly, I didn't film this response but Phil Haynes was quite defiant in saying a responsible board must keep their options open. So much for listening to shareholder feedback. A 25% placement power is potentially hugely dilutive for the existing shareholders and that's why they keep voting against it, Phil. And you just can't be a fanatical supporter of retail shareholders if you simultaneously believe boards should be able to selectively place 25% of the company to whoever they like, completely ignoring retail shareholders who don't get a look in on said placement unless they are officially deemed "sophisticated".
Copyright © 2026 The Mayne Report. All rights reserved
