5 questions lodged at 2026 ALS Group (ALQ) hybrid AGM

Q1. Which of the proxy advisers covered us this year and did any recommend a vote against any of today's resolutions, including this remuneration report item? If so, what reasons did they give and did this translate into any material protest votes? Please don't say they are confidential. It is standard for companies to be across this detail on the voting recommendations and inform shareholders where relevant. Also, please disclose the proxies early to the ASX along with the formal addresses next year so we can have a more fully informed AGM debate. Many other companies now do this.

Answer: The online moderator initially posted this message: "Dear Stephen, We do not provide comment on proxy advisor recommendations or reports. The company does not receive copies of all such reports. The votes for, open, and against each resolution will be disclosed at today's meeting at the time each resolution is considered." I sent the following reply: "Not looking for private moderator comments. Please read my questions in full and if the chairs wants to refuse to say all proxy advisers were in favour, then that's fine. Don't read this message out." They still refused to read it out, so resubmitted the question as follows to be asked when approving the CEO's LTI grant:

Q1 again: "Which of the proxy advisers covered us this year and did any recommend a vote against any of today's resolutions, including this LTI grant for the CEO. If so, what reasons did they give and did this translate into any material protest votes? Please don't say they are confidential. It is standard for companies to be across this detail on the voting recommendations and inform shareholders where relevant. Also, please disclose the proxies early to the ASX along with the formal addresses next year so we can have a more fully informed AGM debate. Many other companies now do this."

Answer: They ignored, so lodged this comment: "C'mon, you've now twice claimed there weren't online questions on a rem issue when there were. Please read it out when we get to general business at the end." They didn't.


Q2. In September 2019, we split with then auditor KPMG as potential litigation arose over non-audit advice provided by KPMG in a foreign jurisdiction. Ernst & Young was subsequently appointed external auditor. How did the situation with KPMG end up getting resolved and, assuming we've not run an audit tender over the past 6 years, when are we next likely to market test auditing services with a competitive tender?

Answer: The chair Nigel Garrard, who has only been on the board for 3 years, said he wasn't aware of the KPMG situation and they were happy with EY provided the price and service remained reasonable. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q3. Which recruitment firm assisted with the search to secure Christy Boyce's appointment? Was it a full competitive process and how many other candidates did the full board interview? Did Christy know any of our directors or KMP before engaging with the recruitment process?

Answer: The chair Nigel Garrard said Spencer Stuart produced a long list, he interviewed about 7 candidates and then they subjected 3 to a full board interview, out of which Christy was chosen. He served with Christy on the CSR board before it was taken over but Christy did not know any other ALS personnel before the appointment. Watch video of exchange via Twitter, plus these earlier impressive exchanges with Christy.

Q4. Thank you to John Mulcahy for his successful 14 years of service on the board, a period in which the share price more than doubled. It is always helpful for investors to have access to some exit perspectives from retiring independent directors. In his final contribution as a director, could John please comment on what he regards as the best decisions made during his time on the board and, if he had his time again, what different decisions would he have made?

Answer: All the way from Houston, John Mulcahy mentioned hiring a great CEO and ending the Queensland dominance of board seats. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q5. Whilst a PAITREO raising would have been fairer to all shareholders, thank you for including secondary VWAP -2% pricing on last year's $40m SPP which led to retail investors paying $16.51 a share, a small discount to the $16.70 paid by the big end of town investors in the earlier $350m placement. The only problem with the SPP outcome announcement was that you rejected a request to disclose how many shareholders participated in the SPP. So, again, approximately how many of our circa 10,000 shareholders contributed the $22.5m raised in that SPP? And staying with retail shareholder disclosure, will you disclose how many shareholders voted for and against each item today like with a scheme of arrangement. Many other companies now embrace voluntary headcount voting disclosure as it highlights the problem of voter participation which has fallen below 3% since the move away from paper after COVID."

Answer: The online moderator initially posted this message: "Dear Stephen, We will be happy to confirm how many shareholders participated in the SPP separately. As it relates to voter participation the number of shares voted is disclosed as part of each resolution. All shareholders have equal opportunity to vote." I sent the following reply: "Not looking for private moderator comments. Please read my questions in full." They refused, despite repeated requests just to read all 5 questions.

Copyright © 2026 The Mayne Report. All rights reserved

• share
  Share
  • 
    Facebook
  • 
    Twitter
  • email
    Email
  • print
    Print
  • link
    Copy Link
  • cancel
    Cancel