Ann: Operational Update, page-69

So it would appear that the party attempting to represent disgruntled shareholders is probably an ambulance chasing lawyer possibly proposing a class action against OBM's BoD for non disclosure. Really can't see what case can be made since as I see it the BoD has been quite transparent in going to the extent of operational updates to make SH's aware of the current situation. Lack of reconciliation of drill results to head grade would likely be a difficult argument since drill assays are done but independent parties and not the company. As the company disclosure says the lack of reconciliation was due using the wrong parameters; however without actual results they can only really use parameters relevant to other similar site and historic workings which I understand is what they did; it's not usual for those to be wrong. The sticky nature of the Riverina ore after unusual rain was also unknown by the BoD from disclosure at the November AGM presentation (the BoD cannot be expected to predict the weather).

It would appear to me that given the support of Hawkes Point for the BoD this is nothing other than a distraction which given the current actions on a "reset" is counter productive. In the words of the movie "the Castle" I feel "they must be dreaming"; to make the BoD responsible for losses but get to keep your profits does not appear reasonable to me. The Corporations Act 249D allows 5% of SH's to provide a motion to a general meeting for this type of complaint - they then have to get +50% to force action.