DYNATEC INTERNATIONAL INC filed this 10KSB on 03/30/2000 Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
On December 7, 1999, Donald M. Wood, the former Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and the Stith Law Office (Wood's personal
legal counsel) filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Salt Lake County, State
of Utah (Case No. 990912153). In that lawsuit, Wood and Stith asserted that the
Company has breached a Settlement Agreement executed by the Company and Wood
upon Wood's resignation as the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
effective as of January 14, 1999. The lawsuit includes claims for breach of
contract, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and seeks
money damages and punitive damages in the aggregate amount of $1,162,246. On
February 7, 2000, the Company filed its answer to the Wood litigation, in which
the Company asserted that its payment obligations under the Settlement Agreement
were excused by repeated breaches by Wood of various covenants of the Settlement
Agreement. Simultaneously, the Company filed a counterclaim against Wood for
money damages incurred by the Company as a result of Wood's various breaches of
the Settlement Agreement. The Company also simultaneously filed motions to
dismiss the fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. The
Company's management believes the Wood litigation is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend.
On March 19, 1999, Alpha Tech Stock Transfer Company ("Alpha Tech")
filed a lawsuit against the Company in Utah state court in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Alpha Tech was the Company's stock transfer agent for a period of approximately
ten years until the Company terminated its relationship with Alpha Tech in
January 1999 and instructed Alpha Tech to transfer the Company's stock transfer
records to American Stock Transfer, New York, New York. The complaint alleges
that the Company breached its service contract with Alpha Tech by failing to pay
$132,165 to Alpha Tech for transfer agent services rendered and reimbursement
for legal expenses incurred by Alpha Tech. Alpha Tech has not yet served the
complaint; the Company learned about the complaint through an unrelated third
party. The Company has demanded that Alpha Tech voluntarily dismiss the
complaint, which it has refused to do. The Company was notified in March 2000
that Alpha Tech intends to serve process, although service has not been
accomplished. In any event, the Company disputes the claims of Alpha Tech's
complaint and intends to vigorously defend this action if process is served.
On February 22, 1999, the Company received a demand letter from counsel
for Mag Instrument, Inc., a manufacturer and distributor of flashlights and one
of the Company's competitors ("Mag"). In the letter, Mag accused the Company of
infringing certain of Mag's patents and committing false advertising and unfair
competition. Attached to the demand letter was a copy of a complaint filed in
13
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on February 19,
1999. The complaint alleges that the Company has infringed three patents owned
by Mag, and seeks (i) an order enjoining the Company from infringing Mag's
patents, (ii) the delivery to the Court of all flashlights which infringe Mag's
patents, (iii) that the Company identify all entities who have purchased,
distributed or sold any infringing products, (iv) that the Company deliver to
the Court all documents reflecting or relating to the purchase, sale or
distribution of any flashlights which infringe Mag's patents, (v) money damages
sustained by Mag by reason of the alleged patent infringement, including
interest, costs, and attorney's fees. During the second quarter of 1999, Mag and
the Company agreed to pursue efforts to settle the dispute and, pending such
discussions, the complaint would be dismissed without prejudice upon the joint
stipulation of the parties. The Company has expressly agreed with Mag, however,
that if the pending disputes are not settled, Mag may refile the complaint in
the same court and venue. Settlement negotiations with Mag are still ongoing.
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 latter 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, 1999, the Company had received no response from
the Enforcement Division about whether the SEC plans to name the Company in any
administrative action.
In addition, the Company has previously disclosed that it has been
informed of an investigation by the Enforcement Division of the Securities and
Exchange Commission. The Company believes this investigation concerns certain
trading activity in the Company's common stock and other transactions involving
the Company's securities, however, the Company has not been informed of the
specifics of such investigation. The Company is cooperating fully with these
administrative proceedings. Any finding or order of the Commission adverse to
the Company or any judgment against the Company in any of the pending litigation
matters, would have an adverse effect on the business, financial condition or
results of operations of the Company, or the market for its common stock.
On February 12, 1998, Fuji Corporation filed a claim with the
International Trade Commission seeking a cease and desist order against
approximately 30 entities. Fuji sought to enlist the aid of the U.S. Customs
Department in preventing the importation of single-use cameras which are
manufactured by any of the defendant entities and which infringe the patents of
Fuji. The Company does not manufacture single-use cameras, but previously has
distributed single-use cameras which have been refurbished and reloaded in
mainland China. The Company was therefore involved in the Fuji proceeding. The
Company engaged intellectual property counsel and vigorously defended its
position until December 1998, when the Company sold its remaining inventory of
single-use cameras to another entity. In connection with that sale, any
liability of the Company in connection with the Fuji proceeding, including the
costs of further defending the action, were assumed by the purchaser of the
Company's single-use camera inventory, although the Company nominally remains
part of that litigation. |
