The Appendix 3B - Proposed issue of securities form has an item...

The Appendix 3B - Proposed issue of securities form has an item 7D1.c (ii) on it

Please explain why the entity has chosen to do a placement other than a +pro rata issue or an offer under a +security purchase plan in which existing ordinary +security holders would have been eligible to participate.

I submit that people coming new to **promotion blocked** and so not yet jaded and coming with a sense of fairness would LIKE seeing a question like that asked - why not (in the general sense if an ASX company is raising ALSO give ordinary shareholders a chance to participate - its I submit a fair and proper question. And sometimes there may be reasonable or appropriate cause - like a need to move really quickly perhaps.

What did CYP say to the question

"To ensure that the capital raising can be completed in an expedited fashion"

If one is familiar with the circumstances that Cynata is in, if one reads, the report that Euros Hartleys have produced such that one knows Euros Hartleys are anticipating a positive response to MSB's GvHD application and such that the DFU was due to come out (indeed Kilian got it and put the company into a trading halt BEFORE he told the market about a proposed cash raise during the halt - so he could have let the DFU results and also (if he believed the report by EurosHartley about MSBs prospects on 7 January - he might have expected two catalysts.

So why so much urgency that time could not be taken to allow ordinary shareholders to participate in that situation? Could the company not have gone another months say? Was it that urgent that it couldn't wait and yet not so urgent that it wasn't even described in the announcement of the 4th of December about a trading halt?

EurosHartley will get nearly half a million in fees. 480,000 + 9xxx. on my calcs.

And on my reading the directors 18 cents shares don't have any caveats stopping them from being sold immediately if the directors wish to do that.

The above is circumstances as I see it - its only for background - the question I am asking is is it fair and just in the circumstances for this company to use a need to expedite things as the reason not to have included the ordinary share holders. So thats the first is it fair and just question.

Also (here is a second one) was it fair and just to couple the catalyst of DFU with a cash raise such that long term holders could not exit on that catalyst without their exit opportunity having been reduced by a cash raise to new and some but not all existing holders.

I think the second is absolutely crystal clear and to me its a resounding no.