Hi Marmaduke,I've hesitated to discuss this aspect of my life,...

Hi Marmaduke,

I've hesitated to discuss this aspect of my life, yet I realise it's essential for understanding my current path and answering your question.

The year 2020 marked a turning point for me, though I wasn't immediately aware of its significance. It was a time when I grappled with a profound personal crisis, triggered by a series of difficult events. An undiagnosed case of PTSD intensified this crisis, a lingering aftermath of a traumatic incident in 2001, where my then 8-year-old son narrowly escaped death. The impact on my mental health was severe and debilitating. I found myself struggling with even the simplest daily tasks, and the idea of leading a company seemed like an insurmountable challenge.

Looking back, I recognise that my decisions during that period in 2020 were driven by impulse rather than the deliberate, thoughtful approach I typically employed. Among these rash decisions were my resignation from a position I had dedicated decades to and the hasty selling of my shares. These actions were not reflective of my true character but were manifestations of my inner turmoil.

The journey to recovery has been lengthy and arduous, taking over two years. It involved confronting and addressing the hidden scars left by the traumatic experience and learning to cope with the PTSD that had silently shaped my life for nearly two decades. Through this process, I've gained a deeper understanding of myself and a renewed sense of purpose. I share this with you not to seek sympathy but to offer a clearer picture of the reasons behind my actions and my current direction.

This does lead me to clarify, why I wrote what I did concerning the current board of directors.

After a heartfelt conversation with my brother, who initially expressed his support, and following a discussion with the current Chairman, I formally submitted a letter to the board on August 2, 2023. This letter contained a request for my appointment as a Non-Executive Director (NED). In it, I candidly explained the circumstances that led to my abrupt exit from the company, as detailed previously.
Despite my clear intentions, I encountered some resistance from the current Chairman. He suggested that I should postpone my return for a few months. However, understanding the immense pressure my brother was facing and his need for my support, I decided not to delay. My commitment to assist during this critical time was unwavering.

A breakthrough came when a prominent shareholder intervened, leading to the arrangement of a meeting. This meeting was set for September 11 at a quaint café in Berry. The attendees included myself, Ian Neal, and Dagmar Parsons.
The meeting began with a light-hearted conversation. Yet, as I delved into the harrowing account of my son's near-death experience, my emotions surfaced. It was during this vulnerable moment that I was taken aback by an unexpected comment from across the table. Pointing his finger at me, Mr. Neal abruptly accused me of being a 'risk to the health and safety of Laserbond personnel.' This accusation, rooted in a misunderstanding of my emotional expression, was both shocking and disheartening.

We did manage to steer the conversation toward more professional topics, notably discussing the company's current High-Speed Cladding patent. I mentioned its 20-year lifespan, only to be promptly corrected by Dagmar, who asserted that Australian patents last for 10 years, not 20. This led to a somewhat heated exchange, with Ian Neal intervening to support Dagmar's statement. Choosing not to prolong the argument, I dropped the subject. However, this exchange left me with a strong impression that there was a significant gap in their understanding of patent laws and specifics.

The meeting, was a revealing experience. It became increasingly clear to me that there was a lack of awareness or perhaps a misunderstanding of certain critical aspects within the company's leadership. This realisation underscored the urgency and importance of my proposed role as a NED, not just to support my brother but also to bring clarity and insight to the board.

Now, my reference to Dagmar Parsons's description of her involvement with BHP, which, to be factual, was Blue Scope Steel at the AGM and their foray into the US market. She used this as a cautionary tale to suggest that Laserbond should tread carefully in its US expansion.

Firstly, it's important to note that while both companies sought and or are seeking to establish a presence in the United States, the similarities essentially end there.
The critical distinction lies in our business model and market positioning. Unlike Blue Scope Steel, which directly entered the US market as a competitor, Laserbond’s strategy is fundamentally different. We are not competing with existing steel producers in the US, instead, our focus is on enhancing their performance, and the quality of their products.

Laserbond’s technology and services are designed to improve the bottom line for these producers. This approach positions us as collaborators rather than competitors, creating a symbiotic relationship that benefits both parties.

Moreover, our involvement in the US market is based on a clear understanding of our unique value proposition. By providing the quality and dramatically improved lifespan of their critical machinery, we position ourselves as a valuable partner to established steel producers. This not only differentiates us from the approach taken by Blue Scope Steel but also dramatically mitigates the risks associated with entering a new market.

In summary, while the historical context of Blue Scope Steel’s US expansion provides a useful perspective, it’s essential to recognise the distinct nature of Laserbond’s market carefully in its US expansion plans. While her insights are valuable, I believe it’s crucial to distinguish the fundamental differences between our situation and that of Blue Scope Steel.