Paul Braithwaithe asked from the floor at the ELAS AGM:

"You've told us a great deal about the benefit to the WPA annuitants of the PRU deal but, other than that they should view the long term and be altruistic, we've not heard much about why the non-WPAs majority of members - 80% by value of members - should possibly vote in favour, given that to do so may increase their risk exposure, the board having admitted that the PO's report may give rise to new claims and may well be critical of your board during 2001 - the limit of the PO's remit.

The vote will NOT be like the 2002 compromise, which required mandated votes of 75% in favour in all classes. We've been told that the EGM vote will be like that at ELAS AGMs. This implies both hundreds of thousands of chairman's proxies and a simple 50% majority to decide. Is this the case, will the non-WPAs be a separate class and has the FSA condoned this methodology for what is now know at a Part 7 asset disposal?"

The answer was that the description of voting was correct. Vanni Treves will make clear his voting intention and seek and cast proxies. The FSA is being kept informed and has not raised objections and Vanni anticipates the benefit to non-WPAs as being the Society becomes far easier to sell and, in fact, several companies have expressed interest in buying. PB came back on that saying that Mr Treves was pre-supposing that it is in the best interests of members to be sold, which may NOT be the best choice.

The resolution to amend the Articles, was successfully passed with apparently 205k FOR and 9k AGAINST. This legalised reducing the threshold required from 75% to 50%. Of the apparent 205k, it is probable that more than half were, unspecified, cast by chairman Vanni Treves as proxies.