Lawyers for pubs billionaire Mathieson are demanding a trove of internal Endeavour boardroom documents

Pokies billionaire Bruce Mathieson Senior has ramped up his attack on Endeavour, demanding access to boardroom minutes and documents relating to the election of Bill Wavish.

Lawyers acting for pubs billionaire Bruce Mathieson Senior are demanding from Endeavour Group access to all boardroom minutes, ASX correspondence, policies and documents from specific board committees and any other sensitive documents that can shed further light on director opposition to the election of Bill Wavish to the board.

In a new and significant widening of the conflict between Endeavour’s largest shareholder, Mr Mathieson Sr, and the Endeavour board over the candidacy of Mr Wavish, the billionaire’s lawyers have accused Endeavour directors opposed to Mr Wavish’s election of potentially breaching their director duties.

After weeks of fighting, inflammatory comments and an open civil war on the board of Endeavour, which owns 1,700 Dan Murphy’s and BWS stores, wineries, the nation’s largest pubs portfolio and more than 12,500 gaming machines, Mr Mathieson has now ratcheted up the heat on Endeavour to reveal confidential information on how and why it opposed Mr Wavish’s candidacy.

Endeavour Group director candidate Bill Wavish.

Arnold Bloch Leibler partners Stephen Lloyd and Jeremy Leibler have written to the lawyers acting for Endeavour, law firm Ashurst, pressing on the liquor and pubs group as to its initial claim Mr Wavish’s election could not be voted on at the AGM this month as he didn’t have the necessary regulatory and probity clearances.

Endeavour communicated this issue to its more than 420,000 shareholders, warning them the election resolution would be pulled from the AGM if Mr Wavish couldn’t get those approvals before the meeting began.

This inflamed Mr Wavish and Mr Mathieson, with the pubs billionaire owning 15 per cent of the company, and soon after and following the intervention of the ASX Endeavour later backflipped and said shareholders could vote on Mr Wavish’s candidacy and that he could later – if he won – seek regulatory approvals.

Mr Mathieson and his lawyers argue this has misled investors and would spoil any vote that was taken.

“The conduct set out above seems clearly intended to discourage shareholders from voting to elect Mr Wavish,” the latest letter from Mr Mathieson’s lawyers to Endeavour said.

“In particular, by making the vague and unparticularised statement in the 3 October 2023 ASX announcement regarding potential regulatory risks, Endeavour is discouraging its members from voting to elect Mr Wavish, without disclosing to members the seriousness or probability of the regulatory risk alluded to in the statement.

“It is unclear to our client how the board members who approved that statement could consider that effectively threatening members with unspecified regulatory breaches could be a proper exercise of the powers and duties.”

They have now accused those Endeavour directors opposed to Mr Wavish’s election run (this excludes Mr Mathieson Sr’s son who is a director) of possibly breaching section 181 of the Corporations Act to exercise their duties and discharge their obligations in good faith in the best interests of Endeavour and for a proper purpose. They also could have caused Endeavour to breach ASX listing rule 14.3 by, in substance, refusing to accept Mr Wavish’s nomination.

Mr Mathieson’s lawyers have now demanded a trove of boardroom documents to further allow him to understand and assess his position with respect to any potential claims against Endeavour or its directors.

The lawyers are demanding that by Friday 4pm Endeavour hand over all minutes, board resolutions, correspondence and other documents relating to Mr Wavish or Mr Wavish’s nomination as a director.

Also, all correspondence with the ASX relating to Mr Wavish’s nomination and the resolution contained in the AGM notice of meeting, any policies, guidelines or other documents of the nomination committee concerning the appointment of directors.

Plus, all documents concerning probity checks being conducted on behalf of Mr Wavish, including all correspondence between Endeavour and any relevant regulator regarding potential non-compliance with gaming and liquor laws associated with Mr Wavish’s potential conditional election.