Ann: Notice of Annual General Meeting/Proxy Form, page-17

I'm still disappointed that Axel was voted out, I certainly don't want to see anyone fail to be be re-elected, especially Paul or Leslie. I will be voting for them to remain as recommended.

Lets be real though, as for moving cf33 out of IMU that's not going to happen if they are voted out, if they don't have the power to be re-elected then they don't have the power to move cf33 licenses anywhere. Cf33 license ownership has nothing to do with PH or professor F as individuals any more, it is squarely under Imugene. Feel free to go back and read the fine print of the acquisition and what happens under various scenarios, including take overs or off-licensing prior to approval. Imugene is not even required to keep it until approval.

And I will agree, there is a massive difference between the price of the company (share price) and the value of the company (IP /Fundamentals). There is a massive unexplainable divergence. IMU should be down in price with the rest of the world, but not to the extent it is. I also don't believe that this is the fault of the board. I still firmly believe that this is the result of a large party playing with the price so that they realise as much future value as possible. As for failures from Imugene, the only minor one I can point to is a lack of transparency surrounding announcements over the last year. I'm not expecting or looking for weekly updates, but anyone who suggests they can't do better here in any respect is blinded by emotion. Even the asx themselves have requested clarity. I don't believe this is a major problem, but it is one none the less.

As for remuneration, I believe they do deserve to be paid well for what they've done, even granted reasonable pay rises. But definitely not to the extent they are pushing for in resolutions 7 and 8. I'm open to anyone attempting to justify those two specific resolutions as anything other than greed. It's put across as performance incentives, however with the massive holdings they each have surely there is more than enough incentive already?

The only other resolution I will be voting against is 14. While I am content to wait and see what unfolds from this CR, I don't want to allow the board to be in a position where they can turn around and do it again in 2 months without needing to inform or justify. I'm all for CR's, but I don't think it's too much to ask for a little more transparency. If I understand correctly, this resolution changes nothing except that if they want to issue a similarly large amount of shares again they would first need shareholder approval. Voting yes gives them that approval immediately. I am happy to be corrected on this however.