Roger H Ballou - Lack of Answers - CDI Corporation Ethics

Read the facts and consider why Roger H Ballou, CEO of CDI Corporation keeps sidestepping these questions and addressing the ethical problems of MRI Network franchise and CDI Corporation as demonstrated by them.

It explains my concerns over Mr Ballou's lack of willingness to clarify specific issues that have been raised with him. In particular it addresses the outstanding questions over his Sarbanes-Oxley reporting. It asks the obvious question, why does Roger H Ballou keep sidestepping and failing to answer these questions about CDI Corporation.

Read the correspondence below and form your own opinions on the ethics of CDI Corporation and their business practices demonstrated over a number of years.



------------------- Start of 2nd email described above sent to Roger H Ballou --------------------

25th October 2006

Mr Roger Ballou
President and Chief Executive Officer
CDI Corporation

Mr Ballou

Thank you for your reply of 23rd October, appended below.

It appears that you are saying that you do not (currently) intend to answer my shareholders concerns raised in my email of 12 October 2006.

The reason you give for this appears to be, in your mind, that you have 'responded' to some issues that I raised as an MRI Network franchisee some 3 years ago.

Mr Ballou, how in your wildest dreams do you believe that 'responding' to some issues of complaint raised 3 years ago could possibly answer these new issues, raised as a shareholder, just 13 days ago?

Since you raised those historical issues, let me go on to clarify just how you 'responded'. The background was that I, as an MRI Network franchisee was encouraged (as well as congratulated by Mr Steve Mills) in winning and sharing work with another franchisee (Mr JW). As a result of that I suffered substantial losses. When I complained to you about that, after repeatedly requesting replies, you eventually asked Joseph Seiders to address my concerns. Those concerns were encapsulated in specific and separate points of complaint that are different to the current 10 points that I recently raised as a shareholder. Mr Seiders promised to address those issues in 2003. However, after some delays, Mr Seiders replied with some imaginary 'theme' that he asserted from my complaint, and his response was 'we simply disagree'. I pointed out to you at that time that this statement was nonsense in the context of all of the points of complaint raised. To refresh your memory, the first point of that complaint was:

1) Duty of care/negligence: Why were we not warned about the financial problems of another office that we were working with?

Steve Mills knew of the financial problem (a debt of 90,000 UK Sterling to MRIWW) with Mr JW and concealed it from us. He congratulated us on jointly winning the 'Major Global Consultancy' work with Mr JW. He knew we were working with Mr JW and had invited the rest of the network to IOR with us. He also knew we had completed IOR's with Mr JW as shown in our monthly returns. We had no other way of knowing that Mr JW was in financial difficulty apart from Steve Mills. All of the UK network was exposed to this problem and risk as we invited them all to join in the project.

So how does Mr Seiders' statement of, 'we simply disagree' relate in any way to that issue? What is it you disagree with from my question of: Why were we not warned about the financial problems of another office that we were working with? I believe that any rational person would agree that the reply was nonsense. The same is true for the other points of that complaint.

Further more, at that time, I did not know that you had allowed Mr JW's debt to you, to grow year-on-year to over £170,000 UK Pounds (approximately $316,000 USD). Neither did I know at that time that his franchise agreement had expired on 1st November 1999, more than 3 years previous to him defaulting on payment to me.

I trust you now appreciate that attempting to hide behind different questions asked 3 years ago; that you failed to answer then, is not acceptable.

I remind you Mr Ballou that you have a duty towards your shareholders that so far you have failed to demonstrate by attempting to sidestep the concerns raised.

Will you therefore:

  • 1) Confirm receipt of this email.
  • 2) Confirm that you intent to answer all of the new questions raised on 12 October 2006.

Sincerely
Bob Stewart
CDI Corporation Shareholder



--------------------- End of 2nd email described above sent to Roger H Ballou --------------------------

Comment on email 2

Roger H Ballou, CEO of CDI Corporations did reply to this email but in that reply he essentially said that the audit committee is investigating the issues. However, I have received a reply from them stating that they do not intend to state the amount that they wrote-off under Sarbanes-Oxley or clarify when exactly this was done. This leaves the whole issue still open as I believe we know how much should have been written-off as MRI Network raised a Statutory Demand for outstanding debts of £170,477:60 UK Pounds (approximately $316,626 USD) and Steve Mills stated that non of this money was recovered. The unanswered question is whether Roger H Ballou complied with the legal requirements or not to declare these losses correctly under Sarbanes-Oxley. So why is he so reluctant to specify what he actually did under the mandatory Sarbanes-Oxley rules? Did he do it correctly? I don't know - but his reluctance to clarify makes me wonder...

Roger H Ballou went on to say in his reply that he had responded to my earlier questions and acknowledged that I had not been satisfied with his responses. Well, that is true that I was not satisfied as his responses did not address the points I raised. He also added that he would not be acknowledging any further correspondence regarding that matter.

End of Comment on email 2