Ann: Becoming a substantial holder, page-9

Dear Fellow owners,
I don't see this as a takeover play, only a possible request to change some of the board members.
It might not come down to a spill, if enough owners advise the board in private meetings or via correspondence, that they do not support the existing board, some board members may decide to resign and not waste their time and ours. The other path for the board is to hold fast, if there are many owners dissenting will make life very difficult for the board and again that's not in the best interest of the owners which is us. refer to 2018 and 2019 number of dissenters from the AGMs could happen again, there are plenty of reasons.

As the board are minority owners, (and why is that?) I don't think they will have much sway. I don't think they can vote, they do not own much of the float 26.3M shares or 1.3% valued at $5.1M ( a lot of that is from directors fees paid by you) price on Tuesday close of 0.195 (not including the CEO) if I have counted right on Tuesday night. Also director fees are new issued stock rather than purchased from market, the director's fees are also dilutive to the owner's long-term value. This dilutive policy would not be in place if the directors had used their own wealth to purchase stock as per the 2016 section 5.7 Minium shareholding requirement.
Assocation members hold 8.008% or $31.5M of stock. that is a 6 to 1 ratio.

I am impressed that this association are this organized. As far as I can tell have provided the relevant documents, in the correct order as per the corporation's act. They have achieved their first goal of 5% to request an owner meeting as per the corporation's act.

It may not be their (the associations) intent to put themselves on the board but have head hunted candidates more suited to growing IPD as a business (which none of the exist board have achieved as per their bios)

Another concern is the director Anderson purchase in the blackout period- not a good sign to me. It indicates that the culture at board level is slack. Why did this happen during the blackout time and also around announcements as flagged by the CEO, to me that is not very professional, I would also add that's is not very profession if the board agreed to allow trading at this time as per section 3.1 (e). It's a rookie mistake for a company that has been listed since 2007 and I don't want rookies directing the bus or in this case driving off road. Indicates something is wrong within the culture. If they can't get that right what's the possibility that they miss a major risk associated with the business.

Think long and hard about why you were able to buy shares at these low prices-is it because the company is strategy well run and financially savvy? The low prices are a direct reflection on the board and their capabilities.

Also, the company/staff can function quite well without the board influence at this time. Will the company fail without the board incumbents, I don't think so.
The data center is set up for 1.1m patients - is Patel still required? only moths come out of his wallet.
Enough Capital - are Willams and Sharp required? why 2 capital raises on the board?
Reimbursement policies implemented by the insurers - is director Anderson still required?
CEO get on with it mate.

Let's see what is on offer.
I want this company to be very successful and a standout on the ASX and the envy of other corporations worldwide.

Kind regards
Acclivity