Nadia introduced the next set of documents. They showed repeated contact between Ronin and Helixor beginning almost a year before the compliance review. Ronin did not deny the conversations. He called them preliminary strategic discussions and argued that exploring acquisition interest was part of his responsibility as chief financial officer. Again, the defense was plausible.
Then Nadia placed the final document on the screen. It was an internal Helixor transition plan obtained through a production request their attorneys had resisted until 2 days earlier. The date at the top was months before the compliance investigation. The document contained projected asset sales research reductions, staffing cuts, and a timeline for separating the software and hardware businesses. Then Nadia enlarged one line executive transition following GA removal.
No investigation had existed when that sentence was written. No compliance report had been commissioned yet. Helixor was already planning around my removal. The board chair asked Ronin whether he had seen the document before. Ronin glanced briefly at his attorney and answered with more care than before.
I had seen scenario planning prepared by Helixor. Leadership transition was one hypothetical assumption in the event a transaction moved forward. I did not authorize Genevieve's removal through that document. Nadia did not react. Instead, she produced an email from Ronan sent 2 days after the document had been circulated.
In it, he wrote that founder resistance would need to be resolved before the board could seriously consider a transaction and that the governance review would create the necessary opening if handled correctly. Ronin's face changed for the first time all morning. Nadia placed the dates side by side. Negotiations came first. The removal scenario came next.
Ronin acknowledged the scenario. The compliance process followed. The supposedly independent concerns had not created the plan to remove me. They had been used to advance a plan that already existed. Helixor's lead attorney requested additional time to review the document and email chain.
The board chair denied the request. Then it was my turn to speak. I had prepared remarks. I did not use most of them. I looked around the table at people I had worked with for years and understood that I did not need to convince them I was flawless.
I needed to ask them what kind of company they wanted to govern. Aelis was not built because I thought every decision I made would be right. I said it was built because I believed difficult work deserved honest decisions. I have made mistakes. I have been too controlling.
I have asked too much of myself and sometimes too much of the people around me. But if this board believes those things require change, then change me through a real process. I looked at Ronin. What happened here was not a real process. No one interrupted.
If you want to remove me, remove me based on the truth. If you want to sell a Relis vote to sell it because you believe that is best. But if altered data and a pre-written removal strategy can become acceptable governance simply because the result is financially attractive, then none of our controls mean anything. I put my notes down. This vote is bigger than whether I return as chief executive.