The attorney for the group of directors argued that the shareholders of CPBL had no standing to object to the reduction in share capital, even though, as argued by S.C. Lois Young Barrow, the agreement between CPBL and BWPL Holdings Ltd. of St.Lucia requires, as a condition precedent to completion, the reduction of share capital, and notwithstanding that the said agreement is under review by the 5-man committee, which by its terms of reference, may recommend changes to the agreement.

Justice Arana ruled against the reduction of share capital of CPBL at this time.

Citrus growers have scored a very important victory by this ruling, as there is good reason to believe that CPBL is prepared to ignore the 5-man committee and proceed with the finalization of the agreement with BWPL Holdings Ltd. This is supported by the announcement on 28 September 2006, for the first time, that CPBL had received Bz$625,000 from BWPL Holdings Ltd. as down payment toward the purchase price of 47% of CPBL?s shares.

It is to be assumed that this transaction occurred after the 5-man committee was elected at the Special General Meeting of the CGA on 16 September 2006.

Further evidence of the determination of CPBL to finalize the agreement, kept secret from growers until CPBL was forced to release it, CPBL and the CGA are on a furious campaign trying to convince growers that particulars clearly stated in the agreement are to be given other interpretations to make the agreement appear good for them.

As example, growers are still being told that they will remain in control of CPBL after the sale, even though page 13, item 9[3] of the agreement states ?All decisions of the board of directors [of CPBL] shall require the vote of at least 2 nominated directors? [nominated directors are representatives of BWPL or its designee]. Again, the agreement states at page 1[c], page 5[d] and page 2 under ?Definitions?, where ?Consideration? is defined, that 12,023,446 shares in CPBL, belonging to growers, are being given away to BWPL Ltd. for US$2.00 total.

Yet the campaigners for the agreement are saying, ?Not so, you are mis-understanding what it says.?

What is more sinister is that there is a small group hiding behind the fa?ade of ?Concerned Growers? who are using a few small growers as agents to carry out their dirty programme of character assassination of anyone who speaks out against the agreement. These agents are given special favours, like company groves on give-away terms. It is unfortunate that Mr.Catalino Reyes, recognized as a hard-working grower, is allowing himself to be used as one such agent to betray his fellow citrus growers.

Sincerely,

Denzil F. Jenkins