SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (6524)1/21/2000 6:55:00 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 10354
 
SEC files fraud suit against ITEX Corporation (OTC:ITEX). In a not-so surprising action, the SEC filed the long-awaited civil suit against ITEX and some of its former officers. The lawsuit alleges that the company's controlling principal manufactured sham transactions in order to give the appearance that ITEX was earning a profit, when it was really losing money. Anonymous posters first exposed these defalcations on the Yahoo message board in 1998. ITEX attempted to silence the posters by suing them in the "100 John Does" lawsuit. This lawsuit was soon followed by a string of cases in which mostly small cap companies, following the ITEX example, sued anyone who dared criticize their management. In almost every case, the posters have been exonerated, and the plaintiff corporations turn out to be guilty of the wrongdoing they attempted to conceal.

A copy of the SEC lawsuit is published on this site.




To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (6524)1/21/2000 7:02:00 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 10354
 
The following is a full text transcript of the entire SEC Lawsuit filed against ITEX Corporation et al. We presume that the content is accurate to the original, however, because of the size of the document, it is impossible to compare for complete detail, and no representation therefore is made to accuracy.

lesfrench.com

sec.gov


Daniel J. Hurson -- Lead Trial Counsel
Paul V. Gerlach
Gregory S. Bruch
Laura B. Josephs
Walton S. Kinsey, Jr.
David S. Frye

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
450 Fifth Street, N.W. (Stop 7-3)
Washington, D.C. 20549
(202) 942-4712 (Hurson)
(202) 942-9637 (fax)
hursond@sec.gov (e-mail)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

_______________________________________________

:SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549
Plaintiff

v.

ITEX CORPORATION,
TERRY L. NEAL,
MICHAEL T. BAER,
GRAHAM H. NORRIS,:
CYNTHIA. PFALTZGRAFF, and:
JOSEPH M. MORRIS,
Defendants.:

_______________________________________________

:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON

Civil No. 99- 1361

COMPLAINT: For Securities Fraud and Other Securities Law Violations

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") alleges:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Defendant Itex Corporation ("Itex") is a Portland, Oregon based barter exchange business whose stock was listed on the NASDAQ Small Cap market until its delisting in December 1998. Itex receives fees for managing the Itex Retail Trade Exchange (the "Exchange"), whose members barter goods and services. From at least December 1993 and through February 1998, Defendant Terry Neal ("Neal"), Itex founder and control person, orchestrated and implemented a broad-ranging scheme to defraud the investing public and enrich himself by materially inflating Itex's assets, revenues and earnings, by making other materially false and misleading disclosures about the company's business and by failing to disclose numerous suspect and in many cases sham barter deals between Itex and various mysterious offshore entities related to and/or controlled by Neal. Neal was assisted in the fraud scheme by various members of Itex management. Specifically, Defendants Michael Baer ("Baer"), Graham Norris ("Norris"), Joseph Morris ("Morris") and Cynthia Pfaltzgraff ("Pfaltzgraff") participated in the scheme. Baer and Morris also profited personally through their participation in the scheme




To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (6524)1/21/2000 7:28:00 PM
From: StockDung  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10354
 
"Faced with ISP immunity, complainants will be left to pursue individual message posters. Anyone who thinks, however, that corporate plaintiffs will automatically win this game should examine the action filed by Itex Corp. of Portland, Oregon. Itex traded on the Nasdaq small-cap market until December 1998, when it was delisted. Itex operates an online exchange that lets customers barter goods using "trade dollars" instead of actual money. The company then makes a commission on each trade.

In September 1998 ITEX filed suit in Multnomah County Circuit Court against 100 John Does for offensive statements made on the Yahoo message board dedicated to the company. The complaint alleged defamation, conspiracy, and various forms of business interference. Itex Corp. v. Does 1 through 100, Civ. No. 98-09-06393. After identifying and serving four Does, Itex reached a quick settlement with one of them. But two other posters, one from California and the other from Colorado, filed pro se motions to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. According to Itex attorney Stephen Pearson the trial court granted the motions after holding a telephone hearing with the pro se defendants.

...

Itex has declined to appeal on the jurisdictional question. The company also has its hands full with the fourth Doe defendant. Oregon resident Les French, acting as his own lawyer, has filed an answer and a multicount counterclaim to the suit. French says he plans to hire counsel once he gets past the discovery stage. He also has upped the ante, posting his responsive pleading on the Internet at (www.lesfrench.com/legal) and founding a Yahoo chat group where renegade posters can share war stories and find support. The John Does Club meets every Wednesday evening at 9:00 PM Eastern time.

French, who says he held a vice president's position with Itex when the company was under different management, is determined to litigate the suit to the bitter end. He sees the case as a matter of principle, with the First Amendment squarely on the line. "These companies can't stand to be criticized in a forum that's comparable to the mass media," he says. "The miracle of the internet is that it empowers the common citizen." Poised atop French's home page is an inset quotation from Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Speech is Power: speech is to persuade, to convert, to compel."

French says Itex has offered him a mutual release of all claims, but he has little interest in an early resolution. "I will not walk away and pretend the whole thing never happened," he says. Trial is set for this month."



To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (6524)1/21/2000 7:42:00 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 10354
 
FIRST COUNTERCLAIM

(Against Plaintiffs ITEX)

Breach of Contract

52.French realleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 51 as though fully set forth herein.

53.On or about October 17, 1997, ITEX and French entered into the Settlement Agreement, which resulted in the Exhibit "B" contract. The Exhibit "B" document incorporates a mutual and general release of all claims between the parties up to the date of signing of the document, but does not fully describe the circumstances leading to its creation.

54.At the time that French entered into the Settlement Agreement, and consequently signed the Exhibit "B" document, ITEX and Norris specifically represented to French that neither ITEX nor The Exchange would:

a.continue to make false and misleading statements to French and the public in its news releases intended to falsely inflate the appearance of the financial condition of ITEX, its size, and operations; or

b.continue to conceal information from French and the public by failing to disclose in ITEX' U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filings the fact that Neal beneficially maintained a substantial control of the voting shares of ITEX, ranging from approximately 20% to 25% of the total voting shares, and that Neal was able to maintain this approximate level of control by creating a series of schemes which enabled Neal, with the knowledge and approval of The Directors, to continue to siphon off additional shares through a series of unregistered securities transactions and "cash-less purchases" of ITEX stock by Neal and the affiliates under the control of Neal, such that as Neal sold stock of ITEX into the U.S. cash market, his holdings were continuously being replenished by ITEX, with the approval of The Directors, and that Neal was continually enriched by selling worthless assets and securities to ITEX in which ITEX Norris, and the Directors knew, or should have known, were worthless; or

c.continue to allow Neal to influence and control all major policy decisions of ITEX and Norris by virtue that Neal controlled the proxy vote of his ITEX holdings which were not lawfully obtained by Neal from ITEX, and in which Neal used to extort payments, benefits, and favors from ITEX and Norris, thereby endangering the holdings of French and other stockholders, and members of The Exchange; or

d.continue to repeatedly misstate to French and other stockholders and members of The Exchange untrue and inflated numbers regarding the size of The Exchange, and the amount of its transactions, and number of facilities, through news releases and SEC filings; or

e.continue to make false statements to the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation system ("Nasdaq") in the course of a Nasdaq listings investigation, thereby exposing ITEX to delisting by Nasdaq, and therefore placing the stock holdings of French and all other legitimate shareholders of ITEX securities in jeopardy of losing part or all of their investment in ITEX through loss of access to the Nasdaq market to owners of ITEX stock; or

f.make false and misleading statements to ITEX stockholders, the public, and members of The Exchange regarding Nasdaq's May 27, 1998 decision to delist ITEX from Nasdaq because Nasdaq had alleged that ITEX made fraudulent representations regarding its finances, assets, and other matters in its SEC filings; or

g.place at risk and cause loss to the holdings of French and other members of The Exchange by virtue of the fact that fraudulent disclosures to Nasdaq and SEC have, and will continue to, severely impair the ability of ITEX to properly manage The Exchange, to the extent that the value of members holdings in The Exchange could, and did, drastically diminish, and French and other members have sustained sizeable losses and injury; or

h.permit Neal, Norris, and others to unlawfully siphon cash and other assets out of ITEX to be diverted to their own personal use, and fail to disclose the same to French and other stockholders, and members of The Exchange; or

i.conspire to conceal material information relating to the assets and finances of ITEX, the Nasdaq investigation of ITEX, the SEC investigation of ITEX, and corruption within the management of ITEX, from French and other stockholders of ITEX; or

j.file a Form NT 10K statement with the SEC falsely indicating the timing of ITEX' delinquent 1998 10-K filing, and the purported progress being made by ITEX' auditors in confirming ITEX' proposed financial statement for the fiscal year August 1997 through July 1998; or

k.fail to disclose to French and other stockholders material investment information that CFO Morris was a defendant in a federal lawsuit in which SEC was suing Morris for financial fraud; or

l.any other untrue statements, misrepresentations and omissions by ITEX and Norris.

55.French is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at the time the Settlement Agreement were being negotiated between ITEX and French, and at the time of its execution immediately thereafter, ITEX, by and through the actions of Norris and others, secretly and covertly funded and otherwise promoted frivolous litigation against French in a lawsuit filed in the Commonwealth of Virginia, styled "ITEX USA, Inc. v. Les French et al"; and therefore ITEX and Norris entered into the Settlement Agreement in bad faith, breaching the fundamental terms of the Settlement Agreement as outlined in Exhibit "B". As a result, French incurred $24,500.00 in additional costs and expenses relating to the Virginia litigation, before it could be successfully curtailed and terminated by French by and through his own actions.

56.Shortly after the time of the Settlement Agreement and execution of the Exhibit "B" document, ITEX was improperly served with an out of state subpoena in a Washington action, which did not comply with the laws of either the States of Washington or Oregon, and accordingly, Donovan C. Snyder ("Snyder"), attorney for ITEX, appeared at a deposition on what amounts to a "voluntary" basis. The improper subpoena was issued by the plaintiff in a case filed in King County Circuit Court styled as "N.F. Enterprises v. InterCity Network, et al, and was issued to ITEX without notice to, or knowledge of, French. ITEX breached the terms of the Exhibit "B" document in that ITEX voluntarily appeared to give testimony on subject matters covered under the confidential Settlement Agreement without having been properly served a valid subpoena, and that ITEX failed to give French 10 days advance notice, or any notice whatsoever, that ITEX would produce documents and give oral testimony, as required by the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of allowing French sufficient time to obtain an order to quash or obtain a protective order relating to the deposition.

57.French has performed, or has been excused from performance, of each of his obligations under the Exhibit "B" Agreement.

58.ITEX breached the settlement agreement in the particulars alleged above. In breaching the Settlement Agreement, ITEX's conduct was intentional, malicious, and was intended to cause French injury and loss, even though ITEX and Norris had falsely represented to French that it wanted to bring an end to the disputes and the expensive litigation for the mutual benefit of ITEX and French.

59.As a direct result of the intentional, deceptive, malicious, wrongful, and bad-faith breach of contract by ITEX as aforesaid, French has sustained damages in an amount not less than $224,500.00.

60.French is entitled to judgment for attorney fees, if any, costs, and reasonable expenses, plus judgment interest and collection costs, under the provisions of the Settlement Agreement and Exhibit "B" document.



To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (6524)1/21/2000 7:43:00 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 10354
 
SECOND COUNTERCLAIM AND FIRST THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

COUNT 1

Fraud in the Inducement

(Against ITEX, The Exchange, The Directors and The Governors)

61.French realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 60, as though fully set forth herein.

62.The representations contained in Paragraph 54, which were made by ITEX and Norris to French, were false when they were made and both ITEX and Norris were aware of their falsity when they were made. Insofar as the representations contained in Paragraph 54 constitute promises to perform actions or to refrain from actions in the future, neither ITEX nor Norris intended to conduct themselves in conformance with those promises at the time they were made.

63.The Paragraph 54 promises were made by ITEX and Norris to French with the intent of inducing French to enter into the Settlement Agreement, and were successful in so inducing French to enter into the Settlement Agreement.

64.French is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the Directors, the Exchange The Governors, and each of them, were fully aware of the actions and defalcations of ITEX and Norris as described herein at the time such actions and defalcations were committed. French is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Director and Governor, and the Exchange, either ratified the actions and defalcations of ITEX and Norris as alleged, or they intentionally overlooked and ignored the same.

65.French relied upon the truthfulness of ITEX and Norris in making the Paragraph 54 promises, and French was reasonable in such reliance.

66.As a direct and proximate cause of French's reliance upon the misrepresentations of ITEX and Norris as aforesaid, French has sustained general damages in an amount not less than $224,500.00. French intends to move the court at a future date to permit leave to assert a claim for punitive damages against ITEX, Norris, and the third-party defendants.



COUNT 2

Negligence

(Against The Directors and The Governors)

67.French realleges paragraphs 1 through 65, as though fully set forth herein.

68.French is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that The Directors, The Governors, and each of them, were fully aware of the actions and defalcations of ITEX and Norris as described herein at the time such actions and defalcations were committed.

69.Each Director and Governor was negligent in the following particulars, to wit:

a.In failing to properly supervise the actions of ITEX and Norris as alleged; and

b.In failing to investigate and discover the defalcations of ITEX and Norris as alleged.

70.As a direct and proximate result of each Director and Governor's negligence as aforesaid, French has sustained general damages in an amount not less than $224,500.00.



To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (6524)1/21/2000 7:43:00 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 10354
 
FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

(Against Each Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants)

Securities Fraud

86.French realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 85, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

87.ITEX, Norris, Morris, and The Exchange, and each of them, created and issued, or caused to be created and issued, TD's when they knew, or should have known, that said TD's were in a deficit condition in an amount of $50,000,000.00 or more, in exchange for items of good and valuable worth to French and other members of The Exchange, to the extent that if all members of The Exchange attempted to spend all of their TD's, an amount of $50,000,000.00 or more of the TD's could not be spent and therefore would constitute a loss and injury to French and the other members of The Exchange, equal to the amount of TD's collectively held by French and the other members of The Exchange. This creation of TD's in a condition of The Deficit constitutes securities fraud, in that no disclosure whatsoever was made to French or to the other members of The Exchange of The Deficit, and that loss and injury to the members will occur as a result of The Deficit, over which French and the other members have no control by their own enterprising efforts.

88.The Exchange acts as an "issuer" as under ORS 78.2010(1)(b) and ORS 78.2010(1)(d) according to the actions of The Exchange as alleged in paragraphs 86 and 87.

89.By virtue of the existence of The Deficit, an inflationary effect is created which reduces the demand for TD's within The Exchange, and causes further loss and injury to French and the other members of The Exchange, including the impedance of trade, since members will inflate prices, and withhold goods of high demand, since the market demand for the excessive TD's is diminished. The offering of TD's by ITEX, Norris, Morris, and The Exchange constitutes securities fraud because the existence of this inflationary impact on the demand for TD's, which is beyond the control and efforts of the members of The Exchange, is not disclosed to French and the other members of The Exchange.

90.The inducement of French and the other members of The Exchange to accept TD's by ITEX, Norris, Morris, and The Exchange constitutes securities fraud in violation of ORS 59.055 because ITEX, Norris, Morris, and The Exchange fraudulently withheld and continues to withhold material information that ITEX would be creating additional TD's and convert these TD's to its own personal use and the use of The Directors, to the detriment of French and other members of The Exchange, when in fact ITEX had no legal basis to do so.

91.ITEX, Norris, Morris, and The Exchange committed, and continue to commit, collectively, and individually, securities fraud by inducing and selling memberships to new members of The Exchange, who will in turn invest their valuable goods and services in exchange for TD's, and The Exchange in turn uses those goods and services to fulfill payment to French and existing members of the Exchange, who have already received and are holding TD's. This type of scheme is commonly known as a "Ponzi Scheme" and constitutes securities fraud under ORS 59.015 (19)(a).

92.ITEX, Norris, Morris, and The Exchange committed, and continue to commit, collectively, and individually, securities fraud by inducing and selling memberships to new members of The Exchange, who will in turn invest their valuable goods and services in exchange for TD's, without disclosing to the new and existing members and French the statistical risks that French and the other members of The Exchange will lose part or all of their investment.

93.ITEX, Norris, Morris, and The Exchange committed, and continue to commit, collectively, and individually, securities fraud, by inducing and selling memberships to new members of The Exchange, who will in turn invest their valuable goods and services in exchange for TD's, while making false and misleading statements concerning the solvency and financial condition of The Exchange, for the purpose of manipulating TD's, and to induce French and other members of The Trade Exchange to accept additional TD's in exchange for valuable goods and services.

94.In offering the TD's as heretofore alleged, ITEX, Norris, Morris, and The Exchange failed, in violation of ORS 59.115 (1)(a)-(b), to disclose to French and other members of the exchange that (a) ITEX and The Exchange would frequently and unexpectedly be changing its "Trading Rules" guiding the transaction of TD's, and that (b) through the manipulation of TD's and creation and mismanagement of The Deficit by ITEX and The Exchange, that circumstances would exist beyond the control and efforts of French and the members which would restrict and diminish the enterprising efforts of French and the other members of the exchange to receive a full-value return from their investment in TD's, or in some cases, any return or restoration of investment at all.

95.In offering the TD's as heretofore alleged, ITEX, Norris, Morris, and The Exchange falsely and fraudulently represented to French and the other members of The Exchange that the members of The Exchange were collectively responsible for the fulfillment and return of value from the TD's, when in fact ITEX, The Exchange, The Directors, and The Governors are jointly and vicariously liable under ORS 59.115 (1)(a) and ORS 59.115 (3)-(4), as a result of the facts alleged in paragraphs 71 through 94.

96.As a result of ITEX', and The Directors' willful and unlawful conduct in failing to disclose material investment information to French and the other stockholders, and for making false and fraudulent representations relating to the size and operations of ITEX therein, French has been injured in an amount presently uncertain and to be determined at trial, but not less than $130,000.00. French intends to move the court at a future date to permit leave to assert a claim for punitive damages against ITEX, Norris, and the third-party defendants.



To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (6524)1/21/2000 7:45:00 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 10354
 
FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM AND FOURTH THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

(Against Each Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant)

Unlawful Trade Practices

97.French realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 96 as though fully set forth herein.



98.ITEX, The Exchange, and The Directors engaged in unlawful conduct against French, the other members of The Exchange, and the public, by making false or misleading statements to those persons in violation of ORS 646.608 (1)(b) and ORS 646:608 (1)(g), to wit

a.that ITEX and The Exchange operate a "zero-balance" credit barter system, as required by barter industry trade associations of which ITEX is a member; and

b.that The Exchange is solvent, and has over "25,000 members eager to take" the trade dollars of its members; and

c.that for "every ITEX trade dollar outstanding in the system, an equal number of ITEX trade dollars are owed to the system"; and

d.that ITEX and The Exchange are under the scrutiny of, and meet the minimum compliance requirements of, SEC; and

e.that ITEX and The Exchange are under the scrutiny of, and meet the minimum compliance standards of, Nasdaq; and

f.that ITEX is in full compliance with the Code of Ethics of the International Reciprocal Trade Association ("IRTA"); and

g.and other statements intended to misrepresent or confuse French and the public regarding ITEX' approval standings, certifications, and minimum standards.

99.As a direct result of their malicious, fraudulent, and unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants, and each of them, have injured French in an uncertain amount which will be proven at the time of trial, but in not less than $500,000.00. Pursuant to ORS 646.638 (1), French intends to move the court at a future date to permit leave to assert a claim for punitive damages against Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants.

100.French is entitled to his attorney fees, if any, costs and reasonable expenses pursuant to ORS 646.638 (3).




To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (6524)1/21/2000 7:45:00 PM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 10354
 
EIGHTH COUNTERCLAIM AND SIXTH THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT



COUNT 1

(Against ITEX, The Directors, and John Does 6-10)

Securities Fraud

117.French realleges, and incorporates by reference, paragraphs 1 through 115.

118.Beginning in or about December, 1997, and continuing until in or about August, 1998, ITEX, Norris, and others unknown at the time of pleading entered in to one or more offerings of unregistered securities of ITEX Corporation, purportedly for the purpose of raising capital to acquire a 50% share of Business Exchange International Corporation, a Nevada corporation ("BXI"); this offering of unregistered securities was falsely reported by ITEX to be exempt from the registration requirements of the State of Oregon and SEC under an SEC exemption known as "Regulation S", in which securities are sold to offshore, non-U.S. persons, with the knowledge and intent that the securities will not be sold or traded in U.S. markets.

119.Within a short and immediate period of time, the majority of the securities described in the preceding paragraph were dumped into U.S. trading markets, severely injuring the market for ITEX common stock, and severely injuring the market price of French's stock, and impairing the ability of French to trade ITEX stock at a reasonable value.

120.As a result of the transactions described in the preceding paragraphs, ITEX, Norris, and other persons caused to be issued unregistered securities which were not exempt under state or federal regulations, and therefore were issued illegally, in violation of ORS 59.055, because the securities were issued by ITEX, Norris, and other persons without the required restrictive legends attached to the security certificates, because the certificates were never delivered to non-U.S. persons "offshore", and because ITEX, Norris, The Directors, and other persons knew, or should have known, that the certificates would be, and never were, traded "off-shore", and that the securities would immediately be dumped in the U.S. markets, destroying or severely injuring the market for ITEX common stock.

121.As a result of the malicious and fraudulent conduct of ITEX, Norris, The Directors, and other persons described herein, French has been injured in an amount no less than $130,000.00, and to be proven at trial. French intends to move the court at a later date for leave to amend these pleadings to allege punitive damages against ITEX and The Directors for the securities fraud described herein.



COUNT 2

(Against The Directors)



Negligence



122.French realleges paragraphs 1 through 120, as though fully set forth herein.

123.French is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that The Directors, and each of them, were fully aware of the actions and defalcations of ITEX, Norris, and other persons, relating to the so-called "Regulation S" transactions as described herein at the time such actions and defalcations were committed.

124.Each Director and Governor was negligent in the following particulars, to wit:

e.In failing to properly supervise the actions of ITEX and Norris as alleged; and

f.In failing to investigate and discover the defalcations of ITEX and Norris as alleged.

125.As a direct and proximate result of each Director and Governor's negligence as aforesaid, French has sustained general damages in an amount not less than $130,000.00, and in an amount to be proven at trial. French intends to move the court at a later date for leave to amend these pleadings to allege punitive damages against ITEX and The Directors for the securities fraud described herein




To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (6524)1/21/2000 7:47:00 PM
From: StockDung  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10354
 
NINTH COUNTERCLAIM AND SEVENTH THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

(Against ITEX, The Exchange, The Directors, and The Governors)

Injunction



126.Plaintiff realleges, and incorporates by reference, paragraphs 1 through 124.

127.ITEX, The Exchange, The Directors, and The Governors have engaged in unlawful trade practices, fraud, securities fraud, and securities violations relating to the operation, management, financial liabilities, and disclosure requirements of The Exchange, and the offering of unregistered securities, causing irreparable injury and economic damage to French.

128.ITEX and The Directors have engaged in securities fraud and other securities violations relating to the offering of unregistered securities of ITEX, causing irreparable injury and economic damage to French.

129.Unless ITEX and The Exchange, The Directors, and The Governors are enjoined from further violations of ORS 646, ORS 78, and ORS 59 as described herein, French will incur further irreparable damage.

130.Unless ITEX and The Directors are enjoined from further violations of ORS 59 as described herein, French will incur further irreparable damage.

131.French has no adequate remedy at law.



EIGHTH THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

(Against The Exchange)

Receivership



132.Plaintiff realleges, and incorporates by reference, paragraphs 1 through 130.

133.The Exchange, ITEX, The Directors, and The Governors, have in the past, and now continue and will continue, to engage in unlawful trade practices and unlawful securities practices as alleged herein through its operation of The Exchange; as a result, injuries will occur to The Exchange to the extent of, but not limited to, the following circumstances:

a.The Deficit, which now exceeds $50,000,000.00, will continue to inflate to the injury of all persons, including French, which belong to, and conduct commerce through, The Exchange.

b.The Exchange, ITEX, and The Governors, are now, and will continue, to remove assets from The Exchange, increasing The Deficit beyond the existing $50,000,000.00, to the detriment and injury of French and the other members of The Exchange.

c.The Exchange, ITEX, and The Governors, are now, and will continue in, failing to monitor the condition of The Exchange and The Deficit, and will therefore fail to take such remedial action as necessary, such as restoring assets, to correct this situation.

d.The Exchange, ITEX, and The Governors, are now, and will continue in, failing to disclose to French and existing and prospective new members the existence of The Deficit, and the detrimental impact and injury The Deficit causes to French, and the commerce of French, and to other members of The Exchange, and to new members which ITEX recruits into the exchange, and the fact that French and the other members of The Exchange collectively suffer a $50,000,000.00 liability caused by ITEX, The Governors, and The Exchange.

e.ITEX will continue to recruit new members into The Exchange, causing the new members to invest into the exchange to fulfill on the credits held by existing members of the exchange, operating what is commonly known as a "Ponzi scheme".

134.Unless a receiver is appointed, to take charge of property and business of The Exchange during the pendency of the within civil action and upon judgment herein, to manage and/or dispose of the business and assets of The Exchange as the court may direct, then such assets and business will become further harmed and dissipated, thereby causing further irreparable damage to Plaintiff and the members of the Exchange.

135.Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint, and having alleged his Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint, French prays judgment that:

1.Plaintiffs ITEX and Norris take nothing thereby their Fourth Amended Complaint, and all Claims for Relief incorporated therein, and that French be awarded his costs of suit, and attorney fees if any, herein; and

2.On the First Counterclaim, that Defendant French be awarded judgment in his favor and against Plaintiffs for special and general damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $224,500.00, and for his costs of suit, and attorney fees if any, herein; and

3.On the Second Counterclaim and First Third Party Complaint, that Defendant French be awarded judgment in his favor and against Plaintiffs and Third-party Defendants for special and general damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $224,500.00, and for his costs of suit, and attorney fees if any, herein; and

4.On the Third Counterclaim and Second Third Party Complaint, that Defendant French be awarded judgment in his favor and against Plaintiffs and Third-party Defendants for special and general damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $190,000.00, and for his costs of suit, and attorney fees if any, herein; and

5.On the Fourth Counterclaim and Third Third Party Complaint, that Defendant French be awarded judgment in his favor and against Plaintiffs and Third-party Defendants for special and general damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $130,000.00, and for his costs of suit, and attorney fees if any, herein; and

6.On the Fifth Counterclaim and Fourth Third Party Complaint, that Defendant French be awarded judgment in his favor and against Plaintiffs and Third-party Defendants for special and general damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $500,000.00, and for his costs of suit, and attorney fees if any, herein;

7.On the Sixth Counterclaim, that Defendant French be awarded judgment in his favor and against Plaintiffs for his costs of suit, and attorney fees if any, herein;

8.On the Seventh Counterclaim and Fifth Third Party Complaint, that Defendant French be awarded judgment in his favor and against Plaintiffs and Third-party Defendants for special and general damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $130,000.00, and for his costs of suit, and attorney fees if any, herein;

9.On the Eighth Counterclaim and Sixth Third Party Complaint, that Defendant French be awarded judgment in his favor and against Plaintiffs and Third-party Defendants for special and general damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $130,000.00, and for his costs of suit, and attorney fees if any, herein;

10.On the Ninth Counterclaim and Seventh Third Party Complaint, that Defendant French be awarded judgment in his favor and against Plaintiffs and Third-party Defendants enjoining and restraining

a.ITEX, The Directors, The Exchange, and The Governors from any future violations of ORS 646, ORS 59 and ORS 78; and

b.The Exchange and The Governors from any future violations of ORS 59 and ORS 78;

and for his costs of suit, and attorney fees if any, herein;

11.On the Eighth Third-Party Complaint, that Defendant French be awarded judgment in his favor and against Third-party Defendants that the court appoint a receiver to look after and control, and/or dissolve the assets of The Exchange, and to award French for his costs of suit, and attorney fees if any, herein;

12.For such other and further relief as the court deems just and equitable under the circumstances and evidence provided.

DATED: September 7, 1999.

__________________________________
Les L. French, Defendant, Counterclaimant andThird-Party Plaintiff, Pro se