Ann: Appendix 3Y - Change of Director's Interest Notice x 2, page-20

I'm puzzled as to why there is a belief that the directors have sold shares, as I have been unable to find any evidence of that.

The evidence suggests that all that has occurred is that directors have transferred shares from Direct to Indirect holdings, but they still hold the shares through different holding accounts.

It is common practice for directors of companies to have direct plus indirect shareholdings in their companies, usually for tax minimisation purposes. The reasons why they transfer shares between direct and indirect is purely a personal matter for the directors, and not the business of shareholders or anyone else (apart from the Tax office).

I believe that the Performance Rights were approved at General Meetings held 27/09/16 and 29/11/16, and the Performance Rights were converted to Ordinary Shares on 30/01/18.

Quite frankly, it amazes me that shareholders in a company would promulgate apparently false and unsubstantiated rumours detrimental to the company in which they hold shares. Why would you want to damage the company of which you are a part-owner?

Sure, it's understandable for shareholders to express concern or disatisfaction for genuine failures on the part of management or directors, but it's in all our interest to avoid unwarranted criticism.

I'm still focussed on all the positives which this company has achieved in a relatively short time. In view of the complexity of laws, regulations and practices in different countries relating to cannabis and hemp, and the difficulties in obtaining licences and approvals, I think they've done very well. Can anyone come up with names of a few companies which have achieved more in such a short period of time?