Ann: Clarification and Retraction, page-13

No I do not buy that argument. The biggest checkmate here is the 12 months in negotiation with Roolife. Over 12 months I think the initial announcement referred to.

Pumate were terminated a little over a week ago.

This statement was included in the clarification document - 'The agreement with RLG includes management fees to RLG which are not materially different to the current cost of maintaining Fijikava.com under current arrangements and are $10k AUD per month' Assuming that can only mean 1 thing, Pumate were being paid around 10k a month for e-commerce for the entire 3 year deal. That is 360k of shareholders money for nada! Why continue to pay Pumate over the past 12 months full well knowing that they were negotiating a new deal on the basis of non-performance.

By the way 120k a year budget does not include the inhouse marketing service FIJ will be providing on top of the Roolife deal. What arrogance to think that their time is not an expense - refer to the second part of the above referenced statement. And for those that applaud the shares for wage argument, it does not wash. The lower the share price the more shares Director's are awarded in lieu of that wage. Think about who becomes the biggest creditors of a liquidated business. The Directors do with all those shares. In the event of administration (voluntary liquidation) where they appoint the liquidator, maybe as the largest group of collective creditors they will make a deal that see shareholders receive some money back. Buying the Company at even todays MC is cheap. It is the R&D and Patents plus lease holding of Kava that is worth money.

Look at Leilo, they are doing very well. Only last night they released their new Kava shot range. I can assure you they are doing everything FIJ are doing and more at a fraction (and I mean fraction) of the quarterly expenditure. My argument here is that Director's know that they can run the business far more efficiently.

If this does go into liquidation, and I must again point out all of the above is IMO only, creditors as in the traditional grassroot shareholders should reasonably consider whether there is any link (direct of indirect) back to the current or past group of Directors or Management before they agree to the highest return on their credited shares.