nothing in my previous post was directed at u joe.'ulterior...

nothing in my previous post was directed at u joe.

'ulterior motives' were in reference to poster watt. and several other 'rare' posters that popped up last week or the week b4.

I could have named the gentleman and the business name that I beleive poster watt is from, but I don't wish to smear this man in reply.

several times prior I have posted reply on hc when poster watt has chosen to smear here. I did not want to name the poster. I thought he would begin to act of better morals. it appears I was wrong.

I do beleive adamantly that poster watts sole intention in all his posts on intermoco threads prior, were smearing in nature and disguised at times to be of an individual that was trying to 'help' int holders.

perhaps the link he posted recently is of interest, but I wanted to make comment to illuminate to the readers, that he 'might' have had other motives for posting it.

motives that not in the spirit of helping intermoco holders.
-------------------------------------------------------

I have advised all those that contacted me via email last week, of my current endeavours.

I thank them once again publicly for contacting me with their interest.

I was originally working on bringing about a proposal of which c group and all my respondents could somehow partner together to form a recap. In addition, find some scope in that plan to look after old holders in some manner. (most minimal dilution I could achieve).

It proved to be a very difficult challenge, however I committed wholeheartedly to that for about 2 weeks. my phone bill has exploded in recent times.

I was advised recently, indirectly, that c group was not going to be a party to what I was aiming to do. I had extended emails direct to c group during my endeavours, inviting c group to work along side with myself, my partners, and my respondents.

I showcased my position ,via emails to c group and asked for reply as to their position. none of those emails have yet to been replied.

I believe we had ability to move further if c group had have been a willing party to deal with us.

I have also had various discussions with administrator and showcased my position regarding the recent spp. I believe myself and all spp participants, should be preferential creditors. And I also believe some may be liable.

To this date I remain discontented in that area. I have stated my grounds to many directors privately and also the administrator.

I saw a recent creditor document of the administrator and which showcases many things including a report thus far of his investigations. I have replied to him.

My opinion is that I do not believe much coverage has been given by him to the recent spp matter/ c group purported assurances in offer doc by way of john evans.

Additionally, THS did not partake in spp. the offer doc clearly stated all directors would partake. the offer doc clearly stated c group intended to take up their full rights. they did not.

The company also accepted my subscription after the due date of the offer.

I remain adamant that all participants of spp, need to be refunded.

There is notes in the administrator report that define company structures of intermoco banner. I think 8 companies.

I think administrators present position is that spp participants would rank as lowest rank creditor. I was disgusted to hear that and I not agree with it.

If u did participate in recent spp, I urge u to contact the administrator to voice your position. I was not even considered as a mere low rank creditor until I contacted him.