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.