We need a copy of this law suit. WE need names.
The Company is a party to pending litigation with a Canadian brokerage
firm captioned as Canaccord Capital Corporation ("Canaccord") vs. Dynatec
International, Inc., Civil No. 2:98-cv-420C, and filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah. Canaccord initially sued seeking
injunctive relief and money damages stemming from the Company's allegedly
wrongful cancellation of 125,000 shares of the Company's common stock in January
1998. Canaccord claimed that it suffered damage from a market shortage and
deficiency to various accounts which had previously been sold by Canaccord as a
result of the allegedly wrongful cancellation of shares. On July 17, 1998, the
District Court entered a preliminary injunction requiring the Company to reissue
125,000 shares in the name of CEDE & Company, as the market clearing house, to
replace the alleged market shortage. The court preserved Canaccord's remaining
claims for money damages and the return of an additional block of shares alleged
to have been wrongfully cancelled, which are still pending. The Company has
named various third party defendants to whom it believes the shares may have
been improperly issued and is seeking either recovery of the shares or the
recovery of damages. At present, the Company is engaged in negotiations with
representatives of various of the third parties and Canaccord, and believes that
a resolution of the outstanding claims, in whole or in part, will be reached.
Related to the Canaccord litigation, a claim for an additional 125,000 shares of
the stock of the Company had been made by Katori Consultants, Ltd., a
Philippines corporation. The answer and third party complaint of Dynatec named
Katori Consultants, Ltd. as a third party defendant so that such additional
claim could be addressed as part of the Canaccord legal action. On October 21,
1998, Katori Consultants, Ltd. gave written notice to Dynatec that it
relinquished any claim to additional shares of common stock of the Company.
On April 27, 1998, the Enforcement Division of the Securities and
Exchange Commission notified the Company that the SEC was anticipating filing an
administrative proceeding in the later part of calendar year 1998 against
various individuals and entities who had engaged in transactions with a Canadian
corporation. The SEC Enforcement Division further indicated that the Company may
be named as a defendant in such administrative action. In July 1998, the Company
submitted a Wells Submission to clarify why, in the Company's estimation, it
should not be named in the administrative proceeding, if any. The Company
suggested in the Wells Submission that it should not be named in any
administrative proceeding because the Company never consummated either of the
two transactions with the subject Canadian company that the Company was
considering, and the Company received no consideration in connection with those
aborted transactions. Moreover, the Company believes that its conduct in
connection with those proposed but aborted transactions met applicable legal
requirements. As of December 31, 1998, the Company had received no response from
the Enforcement Division about whether the SEC plans to name the Company in any
administrative action. |
