Michael West Article, page-5

I replied to Michael at Micharl West Media. He acknowledge my response personally. I ccd Annette OHara in and wanted better returns for shareholders.

Thanks to Michael for raising the Shine Lawyer Issue in his article of 12 January but he has asked questions that many are asking but I think he has got it wrong in respect of the $35 Million for the administration and settlement of the claims.

I would argue that the readers have been misled by Michael into thinking Shine is heading for a loss in FY23. Shine will end this year with more cash than ever in hand and a net debt position of Zero debt

Michael, Shine cannot have booked the work for ongoing administration as revenue because the work has not been done. No accounts have been done. It wouldnt pass audit.

The revenue booked was the legal fees to win the Federal and High Court case and interest liability was progressively booked and will be written down accordingly as cashflow and cash in hand is written up.

The only claims that have been assessed properly to enable compensation are those of three original cases Sanders et al.

All the remaining cases will have to have their medical histories examined by a medical panel including gynocologists and radiologists to assess each case and detrrmine their share of the pie. These people do not get out of bed for less than $3500 a day, I worked fot Healius and I know these people earn 400- 800,000 each a year. It is not just administration. If Shine was charging $35M they would incur costs and expenses of approximately $28 million at the usual 20% margin. Most of these would go on medical review, not postage, documentation or legal eagles. The fast track offers a fixed settlement for those who need their money quicker and will be more immediate. It will be fair to some who suffered less, but not fair to those whose lifes have been badly affected and they will get more but have to wait because justice has to be done so the distribution is proportionate to the damage suffered. That means there can be no distribution until every case has been individually assessed unless you have accepted a fasttrack payment.

It will not be a write down of WIP, rather a lost opportunity to add 35M in WIP and potentially 28M in disbursment liabilities if another law firm wins the right to administer the leftovers. Jan Saddler and Rebecca Jancauskas have sadly left Shine to form a new firm and will most likely tender for this as they ran the case for almost a decade and know the details intimately. There is a strong possibility that this may happen, in that case, Shine NPAT would be $2 to 4 million less per annum than previously hoped for 2 years or so for but would still be in the order of $28-30 million per annum.

The Price Earnings for Shine is only about 5.4x and it has increasing cash flow, increasing dividend, and increasing assets that are discounted appropriately. It is not a VALUE TRAP.

What Shine management needs to do is return some of this excess cash to its shareholders rather than a foray into the UK. It should be able to pay a 4 cent interim dividend and a 6 cent final dividend.

Annette I have ccd you please forward this to Ravin Raj CFO and Mr Morrison CEO for their consideration.