{
  "docId": "019dd923-622c-750b-8b97-68418de85133",
  "docSlug": "37d97da88b15",
  "documentTitle": "CPI Property Group (CPIPGR)",
  "authorId": "51_Muddy_Waters",
  "authorName": "Carson Block",
  "documentKindSlug": "shareholder-letter",
  "documentKindLabel": "Shareholder letter",
  "sourceTypeSlug": "short_seller",
  "sourceTypeLabel": "Short seller",
  "presentationDate": "2023-11-30 00:00:00",
  "orientation": "portrait",
  "aspectRatio": 0.77272725,
  "pageNumber": 3,
  "pageCount": 3,
  "prevPage": 2,
  "nextPage": null,
  "slideType": "demand_list",
  "function": "state_demand",
  "density": "balanced",
  "nDataPoints": 2,
  "notes": "This slide functions as a list of investigative questions directed at management, likely from a short-seller report.",
  "elementsJson": [
    "numbered_list",
    "footnote"
  ],
  "metadataConfidence": 1,
  "imagePath": null,
  "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-622c-750b-8b97-68418de85133/3",
  "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b97-68418de85133",
  "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b97-68418de85133.json",
  "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b97-68418de85133#slide-3",
  "components": [
    {
      "bbox": null,
      "kind": "callout",
      "text": "Why didn't Vitek purchase the new superyacht without involving CPI PG?",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": "Visual emphasis",
      "toolSlug": "visual-emphasis",
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "019dd952-f5d4-752d-aad9-dfbf7c53911b",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.35,
        "w": 0.76,
        "x": 0.12,
        "y": 0.25
      },
      "kind": "list",
      "text": "BT 2 Vessel Ltd.: 1. Why didn’t Vitek purchase the new superyacht without involving CPI PG? 2. How did involving CPI PG in the acquisition of the superyacht benefit bondholders and outside investors in CPI PG? 3. Why doesn’t the entity BT 2 Vessel Ltd. appear in the list of subsidiaries acquired as part of the Polma 1 acquisition? 4. Why isn’t Eurocraft Cantieri Navali S.r.l. disclosed as a shipbuilder, as opposed to a building owner, in CPI PG’s filings? 5. Why did Vitek’s entity, Aspermont S.à.r.l., owe CPI PG €8.8 million after the BT 2 transactions?",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "numbered",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "76bd8236-c070-4f11-98c9-6e891ff5d25d",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.15,
        "w": 0.76,
        "x": 0.12,
        "y": 0.09
      },
      "kind": "list",
      "text": "WXZ1: 1. What was the rationale for retroactively paying Patrick Vitek’s entity an additional €52.1 million for WXZ1? In particular, we are unclear on how the agreement with CEE Immobilien GmbH in 2022 would affect the per-share price of Immofinanz shares CPI PG purchased before the announcement of the intended takeover offer was made?",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "numbered",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "9c669d9e-a95f-4388-a3ba-a38b8c0cf33b",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.05,
        "w": 0.76,
        "x": 0.12,
        "y": 0.88
      },
      "kind": "source-note",
      "text": "4 Muddy Waters Report, “CPI Property Group SA (CPIPGR) Part 1: Brazen Looting of CPI PG”, Pg. 47. 5 Muddy Waters Report, “CPI Property Group SA (CPIPGR) Part 1: Brazen Looting of CPI PG”, Pg. 47.",
      "attrs": {
        "numbered": true
      },
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "ab491ea3-c14e-41f7-9c0c-6180717a6691",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    }
  ],
  "metrics": [],
  "tools": [
    {
      "name": "List presentation",
      "slug": "list-presentation",
      "agent": null,
      "layer": "slide",
      "matchId": "289b3cab-3a61-4723-b681-c5ec8466b27d",
      "evidence": "list/numbered: BT 2 Vessel Ltd.: 1. Why didn’t Vitek purchase the new superyacht without involving CPI PG? 2. How did involving CPI PG in the acquisition of the superyacht benefit bondholders and outside investors in CPI",
      "confidence": 0.8
    }
  ],
  "frameworks": [],
  "arcBeats": [
    {
      "to": 3,
      "from": 3,
      "beatId": "e9dc9c4c-5b84-40d1-ab4d-4d20ce50ffc1",
      "arcName": "Problem-Agitate-Solution",
      "arcSlug": "problem-agitate-solution",
      "beatName": "Evidence",
      "beatSlug": "evidence",
      "evidence": "Additional demand list",
      "position": 1,
      "confidence": 0.7,
      "parentBeatName": null,
      "parentBeatSlug": null
    }
  ],
  "loops": [
    {
      "to": 3,
      "from": 2,
      "name": "Cost Of Inaction",
      "slug": "27-cost-of-inaction",
      "bestFor": "Urgent budget requests, compliance, risk mitigation",
      "matchId": "29d9cc55-d9e4-4665-962a-1c0ebd026041",
      "evidence": "The demand list implies consequences for not addressing concerns",
      "position": 0,
      "objective": "What is the cost of inaction on CPI's management?",
      "structure": "The Status Quo -> The Hidden Costs Accumulating -> The Future State of Inaction -> The Tipping Point",
      "confidence": 0.6,
      "description": "Quantify what happens if the audience does nothing"
    }
  ],
  "imagePathAlt": null,
  "thumbSrc": null,
  "thumbSrcAlt": null,
  "locked": true
}