Ann: Notice received under Section 249D of the Corporations Act, page-204

I'm all for a robust debate and appreciate the variety of views, even those from non-shareholders expressing their (repeated) concern for us holders who are hurting.

Thank you, however, I cannot help but notice the debate has somewhat degraded into a seemingly personal attack and now borderline racist. The collective "be careful" views have been expressed and your warnings duly noted, overshadowed only by the fear that I may never recover the half a million dollars my family has lost to date with the current management and their plan (Browns/Twitter/Other).

I think SH's are mature enough to make up their own minds in due course when it comes time to vote. I sincerely welcome anything factual the non-holder "be careful" alliance could offer the group.

To my view, Mrs Stoaty coming onto the board is no foregone conclusion. Mrs Stoaty is a nomination, which will be voted on in due course, like the other nominations for board replacements/removals. If you don't like the nomination/removal, then vote nay. It really is that simple. Of course, to have a vote, you have to own some shares..

From the limited research I have done - and I could be mistaken - Mrs Stoaty is a forensic accountant and is one of the largest shareholders of CLA. I'm sure that should the 249D get up and it goes to a vote, there will be a complete bio of Mrs Stoaty and the other potential directors with which people can make their own assessments.