AGM vote: No, No, abstain, page-29

Smarty,
We've got no transparency as to why this is required.
(i) do they want this in case Fuji don't exercise and we decide to go alone? Perhaps they can make the allocation conditional on this situation, also would send a signal to fuji that we are not dependent on fuji.
(ii) you mentioned more than one institution (I'm hoping strategic partner rather than just a fund that requires this as a condition for funding trials) may be interested - either allocate the 15% currently permitted to an insto and on the chance that another insto subsequently becomes interested get the additional 10% approval. Or I'd be fine with 25% if the condition was that this can only be allocated to strategic partners (eg another few fujis).
I'm not saying the directors are intending anything other than to act in shareholder interest, my point is we are being asked to allow a 20% dilution (25% new shares would cause a 20% dilution?) and would like to know the reason. Otherwise it's difficult to support something that you don't understand.

Re Japanese news releases, not sure how much is new there, when Fuji was first signed you can assume both CYP and fuji planned to go ahead (otherwise why would they enter the agreement), the news indicates that their position is that they still want to go ahead, ie it's unchanged. They've already said working with fuji on this. Really the only news event that will matter is when they actually sign (or don't sign).