Ann: Results of Meeting, page-9

That is simply untrue and a cop-out. There is no ""conflict of interest" in any of the tabled Resolutions (with perhaps the possible exception of Resolution 6). If you read the Meeting results there is no meaningful difference in the voting numbers in any of the 7 Resolutions.

On top of that, the ASX listing Rules and the Corporations Act requirements centre on "related party" transactions not "conflicts of interest" (even if they were present - which they are not in any of the Resolutions (again, with possible exception of Resolution 6).

Where have the claimed "conflicts of interest" or 'related party transactions) been outlined by the Directors - either at the time or in the Notice of Meeting and attaching Resolutions - which is a requirement.

6 of the Resolutions related to Placements (that the Directors could not have participated in - or to which a pre-approval from shareholders was required - which never happened) - or related to the Lead manager role of CPS Capital to the recent Entitlement Issue.

As far as I am aware, Directors did not (in fact, could not) participate in either the November or February Placements. Neither are they related to CPS Capital.

Please identify the Resolutions (just say which Resolution number) that you believe the Directors are conflicted by - or in which transaction the Directors have a related party association.

Please don't respond with a weak get-out clause, change the subject or direct abuse at me - just identify the Resolutions affected as far as you see "conflicts of interest" or be prepared to withdraw your incorrect statement that the Directors couldn't vote - they could - and they didn't - simple as that.