Ann: Notice Received Under Section 249D of the Corporations Act, page-29

Hi J19,
Thanks for your view. It is good to see more colour around the proceedings.
To add some balance though it should be remembered that the study results were not as hoped for (the advisory board members on the call confirmed it failed to be statistically significant) and the share price had already halved before Jack was dismissed. The initial release was so poor that everyone could see through it, but the conference call only confirmed the disappointment. Also, the extraordinary cash burn was the result of the decisions made when he was in charge as is the need for yet another major CR now.
The lack of clarity as to why Jack was dismissed is poor and should be rectified ASAP for any confidence to return. Is there a law suit happening that prevents the facts from being explained?
If Peta's replacement is related to a single shareholder who has close to the holdings of the group calling for a spill it is doubtful the spill will succeed unless there are negotiations with the institutional holders that we do not know about. The vote will be very very interesting as we see who is backing who.