As promised I have been reflecting on the Melbourne meeting over...

As promised I have been reflecting on the Melbourne meeting over the weekend. My highest priority in attending was to meet and form a subjective view of the company officeholders.

The meeting was conducted in an open fashion with questions allowed throughout the presentation. I arrived about 7 minutes after the midday start, but I don't think I missed much and the meeting did run until about 2.00pm, so there was plenty of time for questions and further probing of answers. I didn't find their demeanour consistent with the thesis sometimes argued here, namely that they have essentially been milking the shareholders in a cynical and deliberate fashion by drawing excessive salaries and bonuses whilst dithering and not advancing commercialisation. Rather I was convinced that the directors present are genuine advocates for the IP who are seeking to get it to market as soon as possible.

Some of the old issues canvassed here were aired. The history going back to the earlier company was discussed and essentially as I understand the explanation it was that although our technology was confirmed to be superior in terms of efficiency and economy it was not taken up by any of the eight or so globally established fractionators because of regulatory grandfathering which made the substitution to existing first world products uneconomic. I probably have not done justice to the argument but it did seem logical to me.

They outlined progress to date and answered my question concerning the disparity between previous AGM projections and the current set. Incidentally the 24 months won't start to run until the funding deal for PrIME iis confirmed, however it is anticipated the SP may rise dramatically once this occurs.

In answer to a question from me it was indicated that none of the one percent stakes have been taken up yet, but quite a few are committed to subject to the "suitor" (Dr Nair's term) signing following the extensive due diligence carried out by a contracted industry player of some significance.

We were told that there are several confidentiality agreements in place which bind the board and prohibit further disclosure. When asked how this sits with the continuous disclosure rules the answer made it clear that the directors are not free to buy on market and have not been for some time.

Questions were also asked about SpermSep and the gels. We were told that significant progress has been made with the former and that the gel division is profitable and cash flow positive at present.

There is much more I would like to report on however time is limited at present, so this brief report is offered for now as a way of honouring the commitment to post something over the weekend.

BT I would be keen to hear your thoughts on the Sydney meeting.

Regards and good luck to all NuSep shareholders,