4 questions lodged at 2026 BCAL Diagnostics (BDX) hybrid AGM
October 19, 2026
Below is the text of the 4 written questions submitted at the BCAL Diagnostics (BDX) 11am hybrid AGM in Sydney and via zoom on October 19 2026 even though Automic runs register. See notice of meeting detailing 8 resolutions including extra 10% placement capacity. Market cap $29m on AGM day. Has got $35m in accumulated losses and negative equity of 826k, so investors are marginally behind. The proxies were not disclosed early with the formal addresses. There were no protest votes.
Q1. Last year's AGM was held on the last possible day, Friday November 28, 2025, along with almost 200 other disorganised last minute ASX-listed companies which required the full 5 months from year end just to hold their AGM. Most of them were small Perth-based miners. Why did we hold a last possible day AGM last year, thanks for moving it forward 6 weeks this year and why did we do that? Will chair and co-founder Jayne Shaw commit to never holding a last possible day AGM again, for as long as she is on the board?
Answer: BCAL Diagnostics clearly wasn't expecting any online questions at today's Sydney hybrid AGM. The question wrangler had to walk her lap top up to the acting chair, Englishman Jonathan Trollip. He sounded sincere indicating that they'll never repeat last year's last day laggard AGM. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q2. I'm a relatively new shareholder in BCAL Diagnostics and don't know the history. According to the latest annual report, we have $35m in accumulated losses and negative equity of 826k, so investors are slightly behind given that our market cap is today $29m, but there is clearly hope. Could chair and co-founder Jayne Shaw please briefly summarise where the $35m was lost and, if she had her time again, would she have done anything differently?
Answer: Had to leave the meeting so waiting for the AGM webcast archive.
Q3. Resolution 7 question: "There have been many substantial protest votes against resolutions like this at public companies over the years and multiple defeats. It is not good practice to allow a board to selectively place up to 25% of the company's shares to anyone they like over a 12 month period, diluting the existing shareholders without compensation for their lost property rights. What is our history of doing selective placements, why are we asking for this authority, has there been a substantial protest vote against this resolution and will you commit to not asking for it again next year? Placements favour big end of town investors at the expense of retail investors. Why not commit to doing fairer pro rata capital raisings going forward?"
Answer: Had to leave the meeting so waiting for the AGM webcast archive.
Q4. "Given the current contested control situation with Genetic Signatures, will you undertake to publish a full archive of today's AGM webcast on your website given that more than 1,000 of our shareholders haven't tuned in live today. And speaking of our 1,192 shareholders, how many of them lodged a proxy vote today and what sort of get out the vote campaign did we run this year?"
Answer: Had to leave the meeting so waiting for the AGM webcast archive.
Copyright © 2026 The Mayne Report. All rights reserved
