According to a statement on the EMU website, despite Simon Feek raising concerns about the very poor quality of the build, 'Unfortunately the quality of construction remains poor'. Even after knowing of the poor quality building work and the poor quality plans and the apparent 'conflict of interest' within the LCSPF, 'a decision was taken to "stick it out"' according to Feek and continue with the sales campaign. How very noble! So indeed knowing of all these issues EMU continued to market the properties and sell them to unsuspecting investors, boasting in their brochures about the ‘excellent build quality’ and use of ‘reputable builders’. For a company which claims to be honest offering a ‘warts and all’ service I think that continuing to sell these properties was both unethical and quite disgusting. EMU were obviously more concerned about recouping the money they’d spent on advertising than they were about the welfare of their potential clients. I don’t know how Simon Feek (MD of EMU) has the nerve to look his investors in the eye let alone complain of his company’s ‘loss of profits’. This type of ‘quick buck’, ‘one-man-band’ company, operating out of virtual offices has been ripping off genuine investors in this industry for far too long and I just hope that any investors that did purchase through EMU have the good sense to seek legal advice regarding EMU’s dishonest and unethical conduct.

1. The poor quality issue was first raised by EMU back in April 2007 to the Board directly and EMU insisted on installing Project Supervision and quality control measures. This was raised as soon as EMU personnel had access to the site and observed poor building practices which could have been rectified at this point. It was not until week 15 of the partnership (26/07/07) that a third party was instructed to oversee and comment on quality practices. 2. A comprehensive "Pre-sales Checklist" was supplied in a regular report (first sent to the Fund on 19/04/07) which was sent to the Manager (and copied in to Lord Howard) known as the "EMU's Log". The first point on the checklist was "Quality Control". The fourth box to be ticked was "'Cutaway section' at each development to show the vast difference in quality" so as to prove to all what the Fund was committed to delivering; high quality stock. 3. EMU made NO sales to ANY investor on the LCSPF stock despite launching the projects to the public. Public and investor perception was in line with that of EMU's on the price vs. quality issue which was evident when potential clients viewed a near completed apartment block (Project 55) in the Vitosha Vets area. EMU continued to comment that the price they (The Fund) were asking for the stock was too high based on the information gathered during the launch process but this advice, even to this day, remains unheeded and the stock remains unsold. Despite several offers being made to the Fund in writing for "bulk purchases" on the stock at reduced prices (in line with the quality of the build), no comment was ever made on these offers and the investors drifted off. 4. Although EMU's involvement with the LCSPF has been virtually non-existent since the breakdown between Lewis Charles and the company in the latter part of 2007, EMU has continued to assist buyers from a previous sales agent complete snagging lists and advising on finance routes on near completed stock (Project 55) and will continue to do so. No revenue has been generated from these services for EMU in any way shape of form. 5. The decision to "stick it out" was taken on the basis that a third party had been instructed to oversee and comment on quality in mid-August 2007 (i.e. only a month or so before the international launch in the UK/BG/CES) and EMU were assured that the advice received (from said third party) would be acted upon by the Fund. No sales had been made to this date so EMU felt that no harm had been done. Providing that quality was improved, EMU had no issues with marketing the stock as a "quality product" and achieving "quality prices". EMU's commitment to "client welfare" is high and EMU MD, Simon Feek wish's to extend a (virtual) invitation to Mr. Sudley to visit either the EMU office in Liverpool or Sofia (and soon Tirana, Albania) to discuss any of these matters.

Mr. Feek…any half-wit with a few hundred pounds can set up a virtual office almost anywhere in the world. Frankly I am surprised that you have stopped at just the four! See my response to your points as follows... Point 1: Between April 2007 and 26/07/07 you made no halt in your marketing campaign despite your warnings about quality going unheeded... Point 2: Well done to you!... Point 3: I’m glad to hear that EMU has made ‘NO sales to ANY investor on this stock’. And let’s be real Mr. Feek, NO sales equates to NO money made by EMU and this is of course the true reason for your outburst disguised as a news article. You visited Project 55 back in November 2005. The price vs. quality issue was never mentioned in your brochure and was certainly not evident in your ever-enthusiastic sales pitch... Point 4: It is again very noble of you to assist (without charging any fee ‘in any way shape or form’) the buyers who have bought these properties through ‘a previous sales agent’. According to your website the agent you refer to is PGD (Property Growth Dynamics). You fail to mention the very important point that you were indeed the SALES DIRECTOR of that particular ‘previous agent’ and were personally responsible for brokering this deal as well as marketing and selling it to the poor unfortunates who were taken in by you... Point 5: According to the EMU website in May 07 you made your concerns clear to Lord Howard regarding ‘over-stated build costs for producing sub-standard construction work’ and also BuySell ‘retaining the more valuable land around it with a view to developing this later, thereby replacing views of the mountain with a ghetto, shopping mall and the like’. Given the ‘warts and all’ approach of EMU, was any of this mentioned in your brochure? I read your brochures recently and don’t recall reading of any up and coming ghettos. The brochures for these developments were incidentally still available to download and the properties still advertised as available on the EMU website until just a few weeks ago. Indeed the ‘Sofia Property Fund’s Project 93’ is still advertised to this very day in EMU’s ‘emerging market residential’ section of the website. In May 07 even your admission to Lord Howard that you were concerned for your ‘personal safety’ didn’t halt or hinder your marketing campaign, which I find frankly bizarre... You are a hypocrite sir and your utter ignorance does not mitigate your responsibility to your clients in this matter! I certainly do not defend the LCSPF by any means, but you have misused these ‘news’ pages by posting a phoney, self-serving ‘news’ article in order to discredit the LCSPF and to further your own ends when in fact you are as guilty (if not more so) as they. Due to your obvious lack of experience, lack of due diligence and abundance of greed you have taken on a ‘dud’ stock of properties and you have tried and tried and tried to sell them. You were in league with these people until very recently. Now that you have finally admitted defeat you have the sheer gall to bring this issue into the public domain as though you bear no responsibility (effectively stamping your feet and crying ‘I want my money back!!’) whilst carefully choosing which facts to make public and which to hide. This is unacceptable Mr. Feek. If you chose to fill these NEWS pages in future with any more drivel I suggest a touch of honesty would not go amiss. Thank you for your invitation to visit your rented-by-the-hour Liverpool office or your back bedroom/home office in Sofia. Much as I would love to meet your imaginary staff, I regret that on this occasion I will have to decline…perhaps for fear of my personal safety.

Sudley says he is not defending the LCSPF. Well, he’s doing a damn good job of it and ridiculing what I have encountered to be a very professional organisation (although I am not a client of theirs, they handled my enquiries for Borovets property well and answered my questions in good time and good manner. And I spoke to at least two members of his staff but never Feek, so will not comment on his character). It appears to me that EMU and Feek raised valid issues as they became apparent and tried his best to protect his clients, the LCSPF from what sounds like the fund managers own dirty dealings. Sudley also seems to know the ins and outs of Feeks life rather well. Right down to his living arrangements and his past career! Is it he who abuses these pages or you sir? Maybe you own shares in LCSPF or have a little too much time on your hands. Just a thought. Having been in a similar situation with a large institutional organisation I commend him for what can only be described as his David and Goliath style stance. And after all, a breach of an agreement is a breach of an agreement. Good luck Mr. Feek and don’t let the buggers grind you down!