Ann: Response to Article in West Australian, page-7

ahjay - I too find it bemusing - words such as "allegations" but no mention of Garratt by the company or that a director is the subject of that investigation, but plenty of reference to KQ - all seems a bit to cute for me.... if the allegations have any merit and one would think after 5 months you would know, maybe they do, then shouldn't Garratt stand down...OMG I would hate to be him at the AGM next week - all eyes will be on him and the reports and photographers (papers) will be looking at him. I wonder if ASIC r ASX will attend the meeting too.

What I don't understand is if KQ has evidence for those 'allegations' why would he destroy it or return it to Empire - seems daft to me, to get rid of the very evidence.... and if he has made a complaint to ASIC and ASX then wouldn't need to supply that very information or evidence....

I note that it took all day to write that announcement, given the journalist quoted a statement from the Empire board, and in this mornings paper, doesn't that mean Empire knew of this say yesterday at the latest (ie printed in todays paper) so why did it take so long for it to come out and do you note there are some errors in it as well - like maybe it was rushed at the end of the day.... I like how they also say they remain in compliance with their continuous obligations -- weird last line... does anyone know why they said that.

5 months - seems like our legal system, they also don't say whether KQ's allegations are true or not... very weird and there seems to be more to this than we are being told, and I really don't like the fact that we have to find out from KQ, and email from KQ from the CFO of Empire and then from the paper, BEFORE Empire can bother to tell us on an ASX Announcement. Why didn't they do that in June when those allegations were made...

Also what are the exact allegations that were made? Empire didn't say that either....