So one of the problems with Robert's (and the way it played into company law in NZ) is that it doesn't fare well faced with recursion .... our game play was roughly:
- someone makes an initial motion - say "I move a motion of no confidence in the chair under the 1873 Aged and Infirm person's Act" - this enrages the Chair, sowing discord, but they have to have a vote, chair steps aside - I move we hold a written ballot (required if asked for) - I'd like to nominate X as scrutineer - Someone else - I'd like to nominate Y - I move we hold a written vote on scrutineers (now we're off recursion can kick in) - I'd like to nominate A as scrutineer ... - Someone else - I'd like to nominate B .... .... and so on - you get the idea
Now pretty soon we're into silliness, the pompous board of directors running the meeting who always have enough votes to pass anything at an AGM, certainly more than these raucous hippies have .... but they're useless if you can't actually have a vote ...
Eventually the original chairman loses it, gavels the meeting back under his control declares all of the above a pile of rubbish and continues on with the previously carefully scripted AGM without resolving any of this .... but we have him, the accounts are adopted by a chairman who was not the chair, the rest of the meeting is invalid ... next step is to threaten them in court with an injunction freezing the accounts .... their secretary couldn't keep up with all the motions, we had a recording ....
Better yet, we had 100 individual shareholders, under NZ law at the time we could call a special general meeting every 6 weeks .....
Needless to say as we started buying shares of the second wine importer, all the rest of the companies stopped importing wine from SA ....