Nine irrefutable facts

I have presented the Directors of Eden Land Planning with nine statements that I consider to be irrefutable. I have promised to withdraw, with a full apology, any statement that they can factually refute. They have responded by protesting their innocence and accusing me of defamation, but have not yet addressed a single one of my nine statements. The reason is simple - the statements are true. Here are the statements:

1) The Investors Presentation stated: Acquisition cost, £2,200,000. That was a misrepresentation or, in plain English, a lie.

2) The true purchase price was £1,475,000 and the acquisition cost was £1,538,250. ELP inflated this figure by 43%, or £661,750.

3) The investors most probably believed the Investors Presentation figure, because no-one who thought they were being lied to would invest money in the project.

4) Until Feb 2023 when I learned the true figure, I believed it too, which is why we invested £100,000.

5) The effect and purpose of the lie was to give ELP access to a very large portion of the investment fund without the investors' knowledge. 

6) In our case, the lie gave ELP access to £29,500 of our money without our knowledge or permission.

7) ELP's claim* to have incurred project costs of £661,750 since completion does not alter the fact that ELP accessed these funds dishonestly.

8) As per the Investors Presentation, on completion, there should have been only £40,000 left in the fund, (not £661,750), of which £25,000 was earmarked for legal fees around the future sale.

9) ELP did not seek Majority Shareholder Consent** for radically diverging from the project plan set out in the Investors Presentation.

* Note: ELP's claim to have incurred these costs was in direct response to my requiring them to account for the difference between the stated and the true acquisition cost. ELP has still not told the other investors that only 66% of their money was used to purchase property.

** Shareholders' Agreement, Schedule 3 states:

No Business Plan can be materially varied without Majority Shareholder Consent. Not only did Eden conduct a completely different project from the contractual Investors' Presentation version without seeking Shareholders' Consent, they did it covertly, never once mentioning the true purchase price or their appropriation of two-thirds of a million pounds of Investors' money.

<home>