outcome of creditors meeting, page-12

Humpty,

So the ASOF scenario was not as dire as the Pinder supporters threatened us with, remember our shareholder's world was going to end if we did not worship at the feet of the Pinders and swear our undying allegiance. Maybe, the selected elite, will still have their secret handshakes and invisible ink memos to each other.

Also, while it is easy to blame the Directors for the ASOF deal for if they had not, and given that this company had no access to normal funding, the Company could have probably folded long before this and not survived. Still waiting for the "Hindsightometer" which so many profess to have.

It always made sense for ASOF to retain the listed entity as they then have an exit given the number of shares they will hold, why would you forfeit the liquidity of a listed entity? While it is true that our ownership of the company will be diluted, at present the number of shares held will still be the same. Given that the lowest that a stock can trade on the ASX is $0.001 and that's where it was prior to the administration, are we any worse off? Of course, there is always the possibility of a consolidation, as has been pointed out, and given the number of shares on issue could be on the cards in the future. The only problem, once it is relisted, could be is there anyone willing to purchase the stock, also current shareholders trying to exit to take losses.

However, on the positive side, given that the con notes have been converted and deals done with the creditors, any money raised or held will go to R&D and paying staff etc, not to just paying interest which has been the case in the past. Also given that it will be re-capitalised, and clearly now has a direction into the US market this now seems a positive story and I am sure will result in an improving SP.

As for some of the other points raised, the question of majority ownership and compulsory takeover should not apply here as it is a restructure and shareholders were aware of the possible dilution in the event of the conversion. There will be an EGM where the new board, share issues etc will need to be ratified by existing shareholders.

Also some have expressed disappointment that the former directors did not have a shareholding in the Company. Personally, I see this as a conflict of interest, as one has to ask if the directors are running a company in the best interests of the shareholders i.e. increasing shareholder net worth, increasing profitability to pay dividends etc or are they working to increase the SP for there own benefit. Personally, I always prefer to have the Directors working for the company. I understand that in most cases investors are only interested in an ever increasing SP, which of course comes from a well run company. Generally just not a quickly as some would like.