agm, page-2

Tooluck,
Question 1:
In the 24 July 08 ASX announcement, when the Relenza sales fell to a paltry $6.2M Peter Cook said QUOTE “Whilst royalty is low, it reflects the off-season in the Northern hemisphere”. All those who know the Relenza market know that Relenza sales to the seasonal flu market is negligible and close to zero. Relenza sales were close to 100% to the Governments’ pandemic stockpiles. He probably was hoping all shareholders are stupid enough not to be able to calculate that the Relenza sales had plummeted 96% from the $158.2M June 07 same off-season quarter to the miserable $6.2M June 08 quarter. Clearly Peter Cook statement is at odds with the TRUTH and insulting to shareholders

Ask Peter Cook what was he doing?

Question 2:
QUOTING Peter Cook in August: "In February 2008, the company announced its intention to commence an on market share buy back of up to 5% of the issued shares. The buy back was halted in May 2008 when the Company became aware of confidential information likely to impact the share price."

Why did it take from May to end of August to make an announcement on the buy back suspension?

Question 3:
Peter Cook stated Peter Molloy launched the legal case against GSK and had it not been the legal costs, the FY07/08 results would be a profit. GSK offered $100 million + legal cost settlement in 2006, $75 million with legal costs in 2007 contrary to Peter Cook’s statement that the last offer was in 2006. Why did Peter Cook insulted shareholders with these statements?

Question 4:
Immediately after Peter settled the legal case at a great loss, GSK started marketing Call Options for Relenza instead of selling Relenza. No royalty is payable for the call options until the buyers exercise the call options in a full blown bird flu pandemic. Why didn’t Peter Cook negotiate for royalty payment for Call Options in settling the legal case? Could he not see this coming when Gillead/Roche had been marketing similar Tamiflu call options long ago?


The MOTHER OF ALL QUESTIONS:

FACTS:
Shareholders’ wealth fell 80% from the share price of $1.86 on 30 June 07 to $0.41 today (Update this calculation on the day before the AGM!).

Profit fell 132% from $20.2 million in FY06/07 to a LOSS of $6.5 million in FY07/08.

Relenza sales fell 96% from $158M ($11.1M royalty) in the June 07 quarter to $6.2M sales ($0.4M royalty) in the June 08 quarter.

Peter Cook turned down a $100M offer plus legal costs & then settled for $20M without costs. They then unashamedly said Peter Molloy started the action. They also stated the company would make a profit had it not been for the legal costs with no mention that they will make a bumper profit had they settled for $100M + costs.

CONTRAST SHAREHOLDERS’ WEALTH to this other tale of wealth creation:
The total board and senior executive remunerations increased by 37% from $2,524,465 at 30 June 2007 to $3,459,148 at 30 June 2008.

On 30 Aug 07 BTA announced there were a total of 894,666 executive options. On 19 Sept 08, BTA announced there were 3,006,614 executive options, a 336% increase.

How much will the board and senior executive remunerations increase in FY08/09 and why is the board insulting shareholders by asking them to vote on rewarding Peter Cook with 976,300 of free options??