5 questions lodged at 2026 Elsight (ELS) hybrid AGM
May 29, 2026
Below is the text of the 5 written questions submitted at the 28 minute Elsight (ELS) 3pm physical AGM in Perth on May 29 2026, the last day possible. They bolted on online access via Zoom 4 days before the meeting, as promised in negotiation after I nominated for the board. See notice of meeting detailing 12 items of business. Nominated for board and it was included as item 12. See nomination letter. The platform commendably ran in full on page 9 with no edits but voting support was only about 1%. There were no protest votes last year unlike this year when there were huge protests as are detailed below. Market cap $1.39 billion on AGM day with the stock soaring 20% on the day after this announcement about more US contract wins. The amazing run continues. The proxies were not disclosed early along with the chair's 5 minute two page address, which led to all sorts of bedlam over the following 23 minutes.
Q1. Question on Resolution 1: "Which proxy advisers released reports ahead of today's AGM? It was disappointing you didn't disclose the proxy votes earlier to the ASX along with the formal addresses, meaning questions like this have to be asked. Did any of the proxy advisers recommend against any of today's 12 resolutions, including this remuneration report item, and have there been any material votes against any of the board's recommendations? If not, just like last year, well done, but please disclose the proxy votes ahead of the AGM next year?"
Answer: The chair Howard Digby was all over the place from the get go, once again showing why chairs should not read the questions. He mistakenly took this rem question early when dealing with the accounts, but didn't really explain the coming voting bloodbath. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q2. Question on Resolution 2: "Could the only incumbent director up for election today, chair Howard Digby, please summarise his capital raising record as a public company director. Over his career, how many stand alone placements has he done which weren't accompanied by a share purchase plan, similar to Elsight's $60m big end of town placement at $1.70 in July last year which wasn't accompanied by an SPP for our 2,497 retail shareholders? How many SPPs has Howard been involved with over his board career and how many pro rata offers has he done? What is his overall attitude to fair treatment of retail shareholders in capital raisings?"
Answer: This question was missed at the time (watch this video of that happening) but loved the speed reading of Elsight chair Howard Digby as he finally read it out about 6 items later. For all the bluster, you can't escape the fact that any company which does a big discounted insto placement with no SPP is shafting retail. That's what you did, Howard! Watch video of the speed reading chair in action via Twitter.
Q3. Question on Resolution 5: "By seeking to refresh the 15% placement capacity today, you're signalling a potential intention to do yet another discounted institutional placement. Why did you do this? If there is another placement going forward, will the chair undertake that retail shareholders won't be excluded this time and instead you will offer a long overdue Share Purchase Plan to retail shareholders. Indeed, shouldn't you do a standalone SPP to make up for past retail dilution caused by discounted institutional placements?"
Answer: It was only when dealing with this resolution that chair Howard Digby finally spotted the earlier question about his own capital raising record (watch video of that happening). Then, as we jumped all over the place, watch video of chair Digby broadly riffing on capital raisings via Twitter.
Q4. What happens if these option grants are defeated? These are huge protest votes. What's going on?
Answer: This was such a fast moving AGM. I just quickly popped this question into the chat as the huge protest votes were being flashed up. Chair Howard Digby was riffing about capital raisings responding to Q2 on resolution 2 when he saw this query on the resolution 7 protest votes. He then threw to Israel to chair the resolution on his options grant and the votes were 49.4% in favour and 49.97% against. Oh dear, a real cliff hanger. Watch video of fast-moving exchange via Twitter.
Q5. Why was the constitution change defeated?
Answer: The chair Howard Digby was half way through introducing item 9, my board nomination, when he spotted my late question on resolution 8, querying the massive 75% vote against the board's proposed constitutional changes. So he again threw to Israel for an answer. They didn't help. Then out-sourced company secretary Sandra McIntosh from Acclime chimed in that it was a perfectly standard and normal tweak to the constitution. Well, clearly not if 75% of voted stock went against the change. Normally in these situations, the resolution gets withdrawn and no-one sees the proxies but with a tiny 4 man board, half based in Israel, and an out-sourced co-sec, these sorts of normal procedures didn't kick in. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Copyright © 2026 The Mayne Report. All rights reserved
