$15,000 investigation costs

I observe the following statement in the statement to shareholders.

I must say the statement causes me grave concern, not only because it implies that JH was using company funds improperly for an improper purpose, but also implies that JH was on a vendetta towards Mr Trevor Shortt

I am sure that JH will make a written response.

From what JH informs me the reality is that is not the case, but in fact that the $15,000 actually relates to a variety of expenditures, including but not limited to a forensic evaluation of the companies computer system to maintain and ensure its integrity.

Something I observe that was not mentioned in the statement to shareholders.

Why was it not mentioned? (It was rhetorical question; I really don't expect an answer)

I am also informed by JH that he certainly engaged an overseas firm to make enquiries in regards to several new (and a past employee) to ensure that the company image was protected.

Included in that group of people was Mr Trevor Short who was now being asked to represent the company at a level of corporate negotiations that required him to meet people at the highest level of business and act on behalf of the company.

JH informs me (and I agree) that it was appropriate that a back ground check were made in relation to Mr Trevor Short and others, to ensure inter alia that there was no conflict of interests and inter alia that he did not have an adverse reputation in the market place.

I have grave concerns about people latching onto a situation and presenting only part of the facts (and ignoring other facts) and presenting it in a light that suits their own agenda.

I also ask myself, about the skills and ability of Mr Trevor Short, in regards to having the skills and qualifications to negotiate on behalf of the company, did he in fact have those skills, could he demonstrate that he had used those skills at the highest level in any past employment position.

Were those alleged skills appropriate for the task he had been given by the Chairman.

If I were JH and seeing a very important responsibility given to a person that he clearly did not believe had the appropriate ability to do the job of representing the company at the highest level of delicate negotiations, I would also do as he did, and check Mr Trevor Short out and ensure the company was protected.

Appears to me that JH is being criticised for doing what any prudent manger would do, and with money that he had the authorty to spend.

Bear in mind that he did not need director approval to use the credit card, he already had a job description, that gave him the authority to manage the company and a financial limit he could spend without seeking board approval.

There are ways of doing business and there are also ways of fighting hard but fair.

Dirty pool in my opinion, publically trying to destroy a mans reputation, to save ones own job.



Mr. Heugh had a corporate credit card provided to him by the Company, which is for paying proper costs and expenses incurred in the conduct of his duties with the
Company.

On 22 March 2012, it came to the Chairman's attention by email from Mr.Faull, who acts as Chairman of the Company’s Audit Committee, that debits were made to Mr. Heugh’s corporate credit card in favour of ASIS International, which the Board understands is a private detective agency. A CA$10,000 debit was incurred on 21 February 2012, and a further CA$5,000 debit on 12 March 2012.

Subsequently, Mr. Hallgren, Acting Chief Executive Officer told the Chairman that Mr.Heugh had informed him that that the debits were in relation to a private investigation of
Mr. Shortt, and possibly also of other employees of the Company.