Ann: Change of Director's Interest Notice - Michael Perry, page-24

You can see all the details in their Annual Report. The reality is that Perry has largely been paid in performance incentives, and so it is technically correct that he would need to sell some as they vest to pay taxes if he doesn't have alternative income streams. Problem with this is

1) performance fees are ridiculously high - to the point where the performance rights over the past 3 years were greater than the total revenue of the company in FY21.
2) a temporary CFO of <18 months got over $6m in pay including performance rights - during this period, the performance rights were pretty impressive for all of management
3) KPIs are way too easy to achieve and short term focused - they simply don't align with the interests of shareholders.
4) total management and director's fees relative to the size of the company is out of kilter - the company has paid ~$40m over 3 years ($13m+ p/a) for essentially four senior management positions (CEO, CFO, COO, CTO), while being a small cap.

To put some of that in comparison, MVP paid $1.6m in executive management team (3 people) and a further $280k for directors - they're also a small cap medical device company on the ASX, so one should think relatively comparable. Or Sonic Health, with +$500m profit on $6.8bn of revenues in FY20, paid management (3 people) $7.5m and director's $1.3m (sorry didn't have on hand the FY21 report). Anyway, you can see that Avita has a serious problem here, and until the board is rolled and the CEO is booted, I struggle to see how this changes.