Ann: Legal Action by Clee Capital, page-211

@DanMachine I've always liked your posts, but there is one part of this I disagree with.You wrote

"I think Clees mistake here is aligning themselves with Kenneth prior to an outcome of a fraud investigation. That really makes me think that it is more likely that IOU is telling the truth, regardless of the timeframe that the fraud was detected."

Timeline on this is as follows in regards to Kenneth

1) Clee goes to Malaysia asking to speak to the different BOD members in regards to the block of investors they have, showing the block of votes they have and ask for the BOD members to stand aside as they don't have the numbers to prevent the change. The BOD - i.e Aaron as he is the only one that agrees to a meeting, declines to resign. The only other person who agrees to a meeting is Kenneth. This is before anything else has happened.

2) A 249D is given requesting an EGM for a vote on the BOD

3) One week later Kenneth is sacked as CFO on a Friday

4) On the following Monday allegations of fraud are announced by IOU

5) It is only AFTER this event that Clee then goes to the federal court to ask for an Injunction because of what they fear might happen within the company

Clee have not been "plotting" with Kenneth for any type of considerable time. This has literally all happened within the last 3-4 weeks.

Yes they have aligned with Kenneth because they feel the evidence Kenneth has shown is to be the truth and it was with this evidence they went to a Federal court where a Federal judge has also decided there is cause here to grant an Injunction. This is not done lightly and there must be evidence to prove this if a court rules this way.

Then the next question - Why has the BOD still not announced to the market about this Injunction???????????