Ann: Race Board and Management Team Changes, page-341

I may also have been in the small minority that thought that the revised strategic plan was actually a positive for the company. As others have mentioned, the possibility of raising funds and subsequent dilution I viewed as a necessary evil, and pharma development and extending timlines are a pretty iconic duo. On a personal note, any dilution wouldn't have a material impact on my holdings anyway as I'm a relatively small fish. I certainly understand that there may have been some loud voices concerned with any dilution given the size of their holdings, but I've always thought RAC has done a great job with dilution given some other aussie biotechs seem content with adding billions of shares to the register each year.

Again, I largely agreed with the revised strategic update as it began to look more like commercialisation paths that I'm familiar with from pharma MNCs and more established biotechs. The mBC trial made sense on the advice of KOLs and targeting this segment of the BC market seemed to make logical sense with the ambition for extension into early breast cancer after positive mBC trial readouts again a common path. Given anthracyclines remain the SoC in this cohort, and PFC of 6months + OS of 15-20 months there was certainly the potential to show a meaningful clinical outcome with bisantrene use. Perhaps there was some concerns re recruitment given the presentation also calls out that 80% of mBC patients have already exceeded lifetime exposure to anthracyclines?

Regarding AML trial, changing the combinations made sense as to more closely reflect current treatment algorithms. I liked the idea of exploring synergy with venetoclax and azacitidine based on guidance that these are the current SoC.

Overall I was happy with the logic behind and the design of the new strategic update.

I'm a bit lost following the recent events, I was happy with DCBs performance and thought that the movements in the SP were largely due to factors outside his control. I, like many am of course happy to see DT back involved with the company given his substantial holdings and alignment with SHs. I can't really work out what happened, pushing timelines out to 2028 is not something you would do if you were looking for a quick transaction. I thought we were closer than ever to bringing a partner on board, and would have been happy to see the global rights to bisantrene given to a big pharma in return for upfronts and milestones that could have been then used to amp up discovery of further FTO agents to expand our pipeline.

The strategy of witholding information from investors such that its scientific impact could be maximised again was something I was onboard with. I don't need to be handheld through the process, constant drip feeding of information may have helped the SP in the meantime but I've been on record as saying the daily SP movements are inconsequential to me and the end goal is my only focus, if there was concern the board and management were unable to deliver on this I would have been out long ago. Of course there was the possibility of a lowball takeover but I cant see SHs voting in favour of such thing in reality. Perhaps there was disagreement with the indications that were chosen as a focus but why comission Triangle to look at BC if it wasnt a focus?

As for next moves who knows. I'm not sure I see anything inherently wrong with the path set out by the previous board and DCB and I worry about what message another overhaul sends to investors and potential partners. At this stage I just want to see RC220 developed and in the arms of the people who need it most. I'd rather see management pick a path and get on with it, forget the back room arguments and revolving door management policy.