SAYNO are pleased to note letters of enquiry have finally been sent to all of the multiple share purchasers prior to the Oct 2011 EGM as persistently called for, and include all relevant legal regulations – which have always been available to Mr Frankham as chairman since his secondment 16 months ago, with claims of being a ‘new broom’ intent on cleaning up CPO !

The parameters originally requested by shareholder groups has been extended to include purchasers of 10 or more shares from up to 3 years ago (26-2-2010), and particularly those before 20th Oct 2011, when sales were finally belatedly suspended due to public outcry – not the 27th as Mr Frankham’s subsequent statement and letter now incorrectly suggests ! Although we also note that the relevant notification statement published at the time has strangely been wiped from the CPO record on the CFC website, as well as 3 other statement publication dates around the time of the EGM inaccurately changed to June 2011 for some reason too !? We trust who ever has been meddling with the facts again will correct this.

These new parameters must coincidentally include enquiry of CFC chairman Bruce Buck who purchased 99 shares during this extended period – with reply compulsory by law, and subsequently open to public scrutiny. It should also be highlighted that the board at that time – consisting of Richard King (Chairman), Richard Glanvill and Robert Sewell (two of whom held positions within CFC) could have suspended all share sales on receipt of ‘the offer’ from the club as might usually be the case, so avoiding the opportunity for profiteers and gerrymanders to act – but strangely chose not to.

The CPO chairman’s latest statement on the CFC website disappointingly once again tries to shamelessly scaremonger that if a concert party is found to exist, those fraudsters would somehow then be free and unencumbered to make an offer for the company !? Multiple purchasers during this period (some of whom will be perfectly legitimate) have until April 4th to respond before sanctions can be imposed, at which point those who have given false names or addresses can then presumably be asked why ? Sanctions may include the suspension of shareholder rights to vote and attend meetings, voting rights reduced to a total of 100 for all connected parties, and ultimately criminal prosecution. Of course, if any of those questioned are happy to prove they voted against the proposed liquidation of CPO by permitting access to their voting records held by the Electoral Reform Services, then it would seem obvious they could not be accused of trying to gain by defrauding existing shareholders under criminal law.