Re: Documents
I first want to make it clear that I'm happy to post any relevant document that is not deemed confidential, by any side. So far, the people aggrieved by AZNT are only to happy to send me things and the AZNT promoters just can't seem to get around to sending me what they promise. Strange.
As for WellRich, I've learned a lot about arbitration in the past few weeks or so. I gather from talking to you that you think it's totally worthless without the full backing of a court. I think the AAA and other similar organizations would beg to differ, but that's an argument better left for people with legal backgrounds and piles of statistics and surveys to debate.
The person I talk to at WellRich is not a lawyer and thus has not been trying to present a legal case to me. I recall very early on neither of us really knew the difference between a ruling and a judgment. When I started asking specific questions about the arbitration process itself he referred me to his lawyer and the case administrator at the AAA. Sure he's biased, but whenever I ask for written "proof" of things he appears to do the best he can to fax me things.
People here can claim WellRich has no case if they want, everyone's entitled to an opinion, but the important thing is that WellRich certainly feels they are in the right and they are bent on doing what it takes to prove it. Lest one think things said on this thread played any role in this matter, you only need to know that WellRich filed its demand for arbitration "on or about February, 12, 1998." That's more than seven months ago and plenty of time for AZNT to prepare a defense.
The obvious question is "Was there a contract between WellRich and AZNT and was there an arbitration clause?" Yes and yes. The contract was made effective on February 26, 1997. It is referenced as a "Finder's Fee Agreement" Paragraph 4.2 contains the following provision which constitutes an agreement to arbitrate as that term is defined in NRS 38.035: "4.2 Arbitration. The parties hereby submit all controversies, claims and matters of difference arising out of this Agreement to arbitration in Las Vegas, Nevada according to the rules and practices of the American Arbitration Association from time to time in force. The submission and agreement to arbitration shall be specifically enforceable. The Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California."
Much has been made of the fact that WellRich was acting as a broker-dealer and thus had to be licensed. My information indicates that WellRich agreed to "find and introduce to Amazon persons or entities who might be interested in purchasing stock of Amazon from Amazon." [emphasis added] If this were not the case, i.e. if WellRich were collected the money themselves, then why did AZNT write commission checks to WellRich for most of the sales? And, no, the word "commission" doesn't connote a brokerage fee in this case.
Even more intriguing is that WellRich claims they introduced buyers to Amazon that accounted for the sale 1,731,842 shares of Amazon stock worth $1,647,814. WellRich's cut was 35% which means AZNT pocketed $1,071,079. Where's the money?
I could go on and on here but suffice to say when I am allowed to post something "official" that backs up what I've said I will. So, sure, go ahead and reserve judgment on the above until that time; that's your prerogative. But if even only a fraction of the rumors I hear about impending lawsuits to be filed against AZNT are true, combined with the lawsuits AZNT has filed themselves in civil and federal court, AZNT should be in litigation for years to come.
- Jeff
|
