I want to make a point (to you first) about the corporate...

I want to make a point (to you first) about the corporate governance statement and ASX market announcements with evidence. The point being they seem to have breached it. I'm thinking of asking them in a question did they and if so why and what will they do not to breach it the same way again - change the policy or change the practice?

From this years Annual report -


From the corporate governance statement (last year and this year the same on this section) -

Showing ASX announcements times of the CR investor presentation - which contained DFU info



The reference to "tomorrow" (ie 6 April 2023) comes from this post on HotCopper (number 67142646) - BEFORE not AHEAD of the ASX announcement office getting the presentation announcement.



My point is the corporate governance statement doesn't say - hey maybe well call a trading halt - show the sophs the advanced stuff and no harm no foul - because no one can trade anyway - it says AHEAD.

As a retail investor I have to analyse a report - I think I can do a better job of analysing a report in this very specific field than just about anybody - soph - whatever - if I'm not put in the situation of having to get the same information later than they do.

Related to the corporate governance - this year just past - only 7 board meetings, the previous 9 - in cutting back the number of board meetings did the governance in terms of reporting to the ASX ahead get overlooked?


Another separate point - KPIS - when is partial Met actually just failing to met - relating to another possible question and follow up - Question - was the decision to pursue GvHD phase two trial funding - rather than just pursue DFU and Sculptor which were already running - discretionary on management and the board or was it forced (ie were they contractually obligated to do - WARF -or obligated in some other way ? Discretionary or forced?

If discretionary - how can Kilian justify taking a short term incentive payment for only partially meeting the recruitment requirement - isn't just partial recruitment failing to make use of the funds raised for the purpose of running the trial - which was discretionary - if so why a bonus for under performing? Or have they not underperformed in terms of getting the recruitment done with the funding they had for that?