January 22nd Update

Now that the EDI Realisations matter has run its course, with only seven days left to agree KPMG's remuneration by consent rather than detailed Court scrutiny, I am at last able to proceed with litigation over the monies due to Think.

It has all taken so much longer than it should have done, principally because Chris Jones played straight into the hands of KPMG and their cover up of their misuse, misappropriation and unlawful misapplication of funds raised in the CVA.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Tomorrow, January 23rd, Jones and Think meet in Slough County Court at 10.30.

The hearing is public so anything said there can be reported, and the documents placed before the Court made available after they have “been before the Judge”.

As of last Friday, Jones chose to be represented by solicitors and a barrister at that hearing. The barrister coming from the same Chambers as used by Christine Derrett in our battles many years ago before she left the profession and became a Registrar and heard part of the EDI case. Small world!

The matter to be heard is Jones application to set aside a Statutory Demand served upon him by Think for the return of £40,000 improperly taken by him from trust monies prior to the CVA being approved, which monies became vested in Just/Think upon the affirmative vote of the shareholders to approve the CVA.

The £40,000, and more, should have been paid to Great Ormond Street but was not because it was falsely accounted for by the members of the Just Action Group as being fees due to the Supervisors of the CVA.

If Jones fails in his application and the debt remains unpaid, Think can apply to issue a Bankruptcy Petition against Jones.

If Jones succeeds in his application, then Think will be compelled to commence County or High Court proceedings against Jones for all claims against Jones and not just the simple matter of the £40,000.

For Jones to succeed he must show (i) that there is no debt due OR (ii) the debt is disputed OR (iii) he has a counterclaim or other right of set-off OR (iv) there is some other reason that the Demand should be set aside.

As you may imagine his barrister's skeleton argument received tonight contains all of the above.

----------------------------------------------------

Think Entertainment has retained the firm of solicitors, Carter Ruck (http://www.carter-ruck.com/), to act for it.

Firstly, in the matter of recovering the sum of £322,000 plus interest from the Administrators appointed to Just Group plc (“JUST”) in January 2002.

That sum of money was raised from shareholders and was required to be held in Escrow pending agreement over the validity of NatWest Bank's charge over the “book debts” of JUST if there was a shortfall to the Bank.

There was no shortfall. There was no separate Escrow account. Chris Jones and his fellow directors just paid a “global sum” of £1,850,000 to KPMG without thought as to adherence to the strict and specific trust terms upon which it had been raised.

Carter Ruck have today written to Colin Cook, CEO of KPMG seeking an explanation of why the funds were not returned to the Company as provided under the terms of the CVA.

Carter Ruck are most widely known as “Libel lawyers” but they have a highly successful niche commercial litigation practice.

-------------------------------------------------------

Solicitors are also being instructed in relation to the losses caused by what I say was the Gross Professional Negligence of the firm of Solicitors, Cobbetts, retained by Think in the FourPoint Entertainment matter. I believe that matter is simple and straightforward and should be resolved relatively quickly.

-----------------------------------------------------

Carter Ruck have also expressed a willingness to consider acting for the shareholders who subscribed for shares in the JUST CVA offer on a “Conditional Fee Agreement” with “After The Event” insurance cover being available. Details of the nature of CFA and ATE may be found by following the links from Carter Ruck's website.

Preliminary advice is that there is a good arguable case that shareholders and creditors were misled by the deliberate withholding of the contents of the Eversheds letter of May 2001 rebutting Chris Jones' contention that £30,000,000 could be recovered from Arthur Andersen, and stating that there was a less than 50% chance of recovering even £1,000,000.

KPMG, Begbies, Calderbank and Jones had all seen that advice but deliberately chose to withhold its contents from the “prospectus” inviting the purchase of new shares in JUST.

Representatives of Carter Ruck have agreed to meet with me and a few interested shareholders who invested in the CVA at the end of February to further explore the case before formally agreeing to accept the case that must in any event be brought by at least one directly affected shareholder. Two shareholders have already agreed to attend the meeting. Please email me (thinkplc@gmail.com) if you would like to be considered as a suitable shareholder to attend the preliminary meeting; I suggest no more than 6-10 persons are physically needed as I will arrange for the meeting to be videoed and made available on the web.

I will personally and corporately support this action to the fullest extent possible.

-------------------------------------------------

A vary large “City” Law firm has indicated its willingness to act for Think, under CFA terms, in relation to claims against Luke Johnson, Viscount Chandos and the other former MediaKey directors for the losses caused by the fraud so clearly identified in the May 2001 Evershed's report. That matter will take some time to conclude and little more will be said publicly for some time.

This firm just happens to be one of those that represents Great Ormond Street Hospital.