Ann: Section 708A(5) Notice, page-43

EDIT: Replying to GBR above

You don't understand what is happening in point 3. The outstanding remuneration was already owed to him in shares. It was not money that was owed in cash. What point 3 is saying is that he is now receiving that same value of equity remuneration at a lower share price (the 2.2 cents that was used in the CR). This means he is receiving more shares than was previously stipulated. Point 3 does not constitute a cash contribution. If the $89,937 was owed in cash then yes, it would count as an equity contribution. But it was already remuneration that was owed in shares.

He is literally paying himself more in shares and you're talking about it like he's making a cash contribution. It is incredibly frustrating that people on this forum don't read the material carefully and lack even basic financial literacy.