Hi Beardy, Two points: Firstly in my view the loss is a...

Hi Beardy,

Two points:

Firstly in my view the loss is a consequence of the accounting rules and Samsung's behavior . The Samsung contract was a schedule of rates contract. I am not critical of the board or managements performance. I would be critical if it were a fixed price contract. I am expecting that there will be "significant" recoveries over time. My concern is that in the meantime if someone were to make a takeover bid for the company then it would go for a song. ( I would dearly love to be a corporate raider).The auditors have ensured that the company's position is not overstated but is it a balanced view of the company? I think not. Would the board continue to claim confidentiality if there was a takeover bid? An interesting question to the Chairman?

Secondly the claim for the $51 million is now public knowledge as a result of Justice Mitchel's judgement. I don't believe the Chairman can hide behind confidentiality about something which is public knowledge. Any question at the meeting needs to be prefaced that the amount is public knowledge and requires an explanation.