Ann: Terms & Conditions of Performance Rights issued, page-74

So lets be very clear Patong. If elected Andrew Roberto will be declaring ALL Drake shareholdings as a Related Shareholding? Is that correct? I'm not referring to any direct shareholdings of Andrew Roberto, I'm referring specifically to the Drake holdings currently declared, which form part of a portfolio that presumably Andrew Roberto, as an employee of Drake must be considered as a Related Party shareholding.

(It appears you have been given the approval to speak on behalf of Drake, as at least on one occasion previously you have stated "we" when referring to a comment that would otherwise be necessarily left for Drake to respond to.)

Wrt your remark:
"The vast majority of the decrease in ownership stake is through dilution from capital raises". Just to emphasise, Drake sold a NET 1.5 million shares. In such a low traded stock it was very significant, and its no wonder there has been considerable manipulation of the share price. I wonder if this has been brought to the attention of the regulator. If you actually Hold a lot of shares Patong, surely you would not be defending Drake on this point.

Go on Patong, do the work, rather than the flippant observation: "Lastly, Mclarty was a substantial holder as he had 6mm shares at a time when there were far fewer shares outstanding." WAS he a Substantial holder or not, and did any sales transaction of his drop his equity either down 1% from a declaration of being a Substantial shareholder or below the 5% threshold? If you can prove that, then I agree with you.

"Because of a miscalculation, Drakes back office didn’t realize they had gone over 1%, and it was immediately rectified when realized."
"Immediately rectified" - really. Over a period of how many months do you consider "immediately". Even then they failed to declare it correctly, they needed a few attempts, and it was still unclear. And you want them checking on SMN books? That is hysterical.