Hi Seanmorr,Yep there was a bit of correspondence going back and...

Hi Seanmorr,

Yep there was a bit of correspondence going back and forth between crf and I.

To be honest, many of the issues I have raised on here in the past month I feel still stands.

Whilst I believe immensely in the future of crf, it does not cancel out the wrongs of the settlement announcement.

There has been a lack of transperancy in relation to most of the points I have raised and for the company to broadly say the decision was made in the commercial interests of crf holders is simply unacceptable.

I haven't yet put in anything with ASIC nor initiated class action proceedings but I strongly feel we have significant evidence to take this matter further.

One of the points crf raised to me personally was the reference securities needed to be deducted from the no of shares I used in the formula to calculate the liability to non cer holders. If you all go back to the formula that is used in the Ann, that simply does not occur.

I still don't know how much of the $200m is being paid to CNp holders. This amount paid to CNp class action claimants plus cers insurance claim should not be claimed by non cer holders.

If CNp holders have been paid out partially by crf, then cer holders should have recourse to cats also........

Its still unacceptable how this has unfolded.

Thoughts?

Cheers