20 for 1, page-2

Why don't I just give up and accept it?

Well I'm not too keen on losing 95 cents in the dollar due to Restructuring of Capital( in order to facilitate conditions conducive with further CR's), then seeing that 5c turn into 1c after another capital raiser were 100M+ shares to turn into 500M ( rough guess at next CR possibility )

That $30k+ that I've put in was to be my deposit on a house. Mum knows best right...yep, see sure saw this one coming. ( my investment turning to nothing )

Yep, I should have listened to Mr Padley & my Mother... but I put my faith in BKP directors instead.

They say, well.... you got done, accept it and move on.... But that's just not how I roll

My savings (all of them) were to go toward real opportunities for profit and dividends, not to fund massive outgoings and other companies to then later just accept that all that money's gone and we'll have to raise more cash and your shares are to be worth perhaps 1 - 5c in the dollar...too bad, you shouldn't have bought our stock then, it's your fault for investing in us, we're not responsible or accountable.

Meanwhile, with much of BKP shareholder funds seemingly tied up in a revolving line of credit on an unsecured basis to a family trust.....

Trade Credit insurers such as Euler Hermes & QBE will NOT insure a Company owned by a Trust. Why ? Because it's virtually impossible to sue a Trust Ac. for monies owing/unpaid. And the likelihood of BKP Directors sueing their own family trust fund is virtually NIL, and even if someone else tried, they would almost certainly fail because it's nigh on impossible to successfully prove who it is within the multiple trust fund owners that is the responsible party and should be sued, one of the main benefits of operating a trust ( other than tax savings ) as I'm sure most of you are aware.

This means all those monies (were they to be under the control of VPG and the Controlling Trust) could fall subject to something such a s a Force Majure, or other 'unforeseen' loss and there will be NO recourse for recovering the funds, a little similar to $300k + lost for which the Directors claim they are not accountable or responsible.

How this can be deemed in the best interests of shareholders and not at all benefiting The Family Trust over shareholders is completely beyond me.

If anything happens to the liquidity of Vost Property Group, any monies lent to them would be irrecoverable and directors and the Vost Trust would be untouchable.

I am also confused as to how CVS can continually claim to be Debt Free, yet states that monies have been lent to CVS and JVG all throughout the last 2 years, how can they be receiving loan funds, yet be debt free ?

Perhaps they are implying "Nett" debt, whereby they owe BKP, but VPG owe them so therefore they are debt free..... another technicality. And anyway, why do monies to buy property need to go via CVS and JVG if they are infact destined for VPG. And why are shareholders not allowed to know the term of such loans?