Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Zia Sun(zsun) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (5613)	11/10/1999 6:10:00 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10354

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.

To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (5613)	11/10/1999 6:49:00 PM
From: StockDung	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10354

DYNATEC INTERNATIONAL, INC. The SEC should be investigating this one, they should not be allowed to sweep this one under the rug!! In July 1998, the Company's Board of Directors commenced an internal investigation into the facts and circumstances of a number of transactions between the Company and certain of its officers and directors as well as several general corporate and management concerns brought to the attention of the Company's independent directors. The Company engaged an unrelated third party to conduct the investigation, which the Company eventually terminated in January 1999. Thereafter, the Company's former Chairman and CEO resigned and retired from the Company. The Company does not anticipate taking further action, legal or otherwise, with respect to the matters and individuals investigated, although the Company, through its new management, has identified several areas in which new corporate governance policies have been adopted or old policies changed. In connection with the ongoing investigation, several of the Company's directors engaged independent legal counsel. An aggregate of $230,000 of such legal fees were reimbursed by the Company pursuant to action by the Company's Board of Directors at the commencement of the investigation.<PAGE>