Ann: Appendix 3Y Notice , page-35

Profit Taker...

Very good post.

Flexiplan sold 13,584,422 shares on the 7th Feb...people need to realise Ms Thomas is simply a director of Flexiplan, so the sale is indirect.

It is obvious the selling would have put considerable pressure on the stock last Thursday (7th), and would have had a large influence on the price fall and eventual closing of just 9.9c that day!

Interestingly, the lower the price the more reasonable the request for the 5.4c placement shares would have looked.

The Company put out a notice the next morning (8th) that included the following comment..."Ms Thomas has today notified the Company she has resigned as a director of the Company"...but I notice the announcement is actually dated the 7th, so it is unlclear to me if she actually resigned on the 7th, or the 8th?

It appears the selling patterns that continued all day Thursday (7th), actually started the day before on the 6th...more or less from the time I posted "draw a line in the charts at 15c"...but of course this more than likely had nothing to do with Flexiplan.

Perhaps parties aware Flexiplan might sell were in first?

There is no telling exactly who turned the sell switch to "on" that day in such a hard way...but it was very clearly switched, after which the trading patterns were completely different to the previous 6 or so sessions.

It would be interesting to see where the stock would have been trading today without the Flexiplan selling...the fact they dominated the higher-price range selling on the 7th (selling VWAP was 12.4c compared to the day's VWAP just 11.8c). In fact...looking at the Flexiplan trades they would have taken the vast majority of shares sold at the higher ranges...assuming, as indicated in the 3Y notice, they were all sold on that day.

In this regard, there is no reason to assume things are not above board here...and that what we have is simply a Chairperson who, according to the board, in asking for 5.4c shares was asking for somethihng "not in the best interests of shareholders"...and in one way or another sold because of it.

It is unclear however if the selling was due to the refusal...or whether it came prior in expectation they would be issued?

There are many possible scnearios, all within the letter of the law...

One view might be she simply had a dummy spit and sold.

Perhaps she felt she was poorly treated and no longer wanted to be involved in the Company?

Some have suggested she was selling to pay for the uptake of said shares.

An option to this view might be that shares could have shorted, say to cover the purchase price and provide some profits, only to find the replacement shares had been refused...meaning the shorted shares had to be covered somehow? Perhaps in the end Flexiplan had to to come to the rescue, as a reluctant seller effectively forced to cover the short?

If so, I imagine brokers involved would be somewhat annoyed at such a scenario...and might even find reason to post their views on a forum like HC?

But, is such a scneario even possible?

What ever transpired, given Ms Thomas' background I believe 100% she would have acted strictly within the letter of the law at all times.

Doesn't mean it is a good look just the same.

Anyway...I see the fact Flexiplan and Ms Thomas have issued their respective 3Y and 3Z's as a sign they have sold what they intend for now, and possibly were not active in the market today...indeed, today's selling was clearly lacking the level of churn and volatility of recent days, suggesting that for the most part, the market has returned to normal.

I think many can probably thank Flexiplan for a cheaper than otherwise entry.

Cheers!