BT,As I understand it, Mr Goh owns a business and property in...

BT,

As I understand it, Mr Goh owns a business and property in Singapore worth multi-millions of dollars. And yet no one has asked him to stump up against AN OBLIGATION. Importantly, one that was to progress SpermSep and make us a fortune, so we've been led to believe. You can email him at [email protected] if you'd like to know when he's likely to pay. Good luck on that one.

In guessing answers to your questions;


"Pray tell, if Mr Goh had been misled, why did he exercise the options?"

He wasn't. This was all part of a sham by the directors to fool us shareholders into not voting for the so-called "rebel" shareholders' honest independent directors


"Who misled him, and with regard to what was he misled - did someone tell him that the shares were free? Which Nusep official thought it would be a good idea to hand over shares before having received payment?"

It would seem like more of the sham. Smoke and mirrors on behalf of those entrusted with shareholders' interest. At the time, the chairman was a Mr John Manusu and the Managing Director was one Dr Hari Nair. Both are now on the 3 member board of PrIME with a Mr Thee Woon Goh, the same as mentioned previously. The largest holder of the options of the type used by Mr Goh was a Mr Andrew Goodall, now on the board of NuSep. Now I am not saying that this was dishonest, corrupt or criminal in any way, but any intelligent person would certainly be asking questions. (ASIC I do understand how you are under resourced and this "one degree of separation" on so many levels, in a small company is way too much to be able to handle.)


"Is that official still with the company, despite their rather basic mistake?"

Read above for possibilities.


"Or is handing over shares without payment official company policy?"

BT, taking money from shareholders and handing it to directors has not been "official" policy, but has been part of NuSep's informal policy from before it started (see all the way back to Gradipore) whether in the form of unjustifiable salaries, undeserved bonuses awarded to each other, fees for underwriting, fees for finding investors or just outright free shares (allowing them to vote and control their own payments). It's all been good if you could get (steal) it.


"Did the board approve the handing over of the shares without payment - if so, why?"

Yes, they did. They crowed about it like the cocks they are at the AGM. Oh, and then used the votes to knock down the "rebels" who were going to create the transparency and honesty needed at this company. And that was years ago. Nice work boys. And then you jumped ship to PrIME. To do the same to Singapore investors?

Does that explain why they approved it?


"And if Mr Goh had been misled, why did he feel the need to send a photocopy of a cheque to Nusep - a cheque which is yet to arrive, despite a promise to hand it over to the company eighteen months ago?"

I was at the AGM. So was Mr Goh. Now think about the question again. The real question is "Why did he have to give a photocopied cheque when he was present and how did the board get the photocopy when the physical cheque existed at the same place as the photocopying machine?". There was no cheque. There never has been one. There never was going to be one.

Moreover, was our current director, Mr Goodall, and his options involved in the scam? If not, why has he been so lax in pursuing Mr Goh?

What a load of bullspit has this whole thing been.


"If this is just all a terrible mix-up, then why hasn't Mr Goh just sold his shares, at any time over the last eighteen months, and paid the incomings to Nusep?

He can't sell his share because 1) he hasn't paid for them and 2) there's no liquidity. The real question is, "why hasn't he mortgaged his house, like I have, to meet the obligation HE MADE?". And "Why isn't he being charged interest like we are?". I'd settle for cancelling the shares and pay the difference between the amount owing and the lowest price between that time and now. Forget that the shares were used corruptly.


"Or simply given the shares back to the company?"

We don't want them back, they are virtually worthless. He paid 15c (well he really didn't) and we've been giving them away for as low as 1/3 of that (not counting the free ones given to directors). The real question is "Why hasn't he been pursued as per the announcements to the market from 2 years ago?"

BT, I like your questions, but the probability of answers to yours or mine is some where lower than 0%. BUT, I encourage you to keep on asking, as I do. The smarter shareholders like us (at least now, maybe not when we bought in with the benefit of hindsight) reading this forum will become illuminated. The dipsticks (yes we all know who you are) will just keep their ignorant, or otherwise motivated, beliefs. Interesting how we haven't seen hide nor hair from dumb n dumber in a while. I guess our logic has beaten them.

Shame it hasn't had proper action taken by authorities to help us see our rightful value.