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.

Technology Stocks : Thermo Tech Technologies (TTRIF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert Pool who wrote (4922)	10/27/1998 7:42:00 PM
From: David Alon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6467

Another Affidavit from Wayne Hansen, plus my comments, C976669 Vancouver Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AFFIDAVIT of Wayne Hansen I Wayne Hansen, of 404 - 999 Canada Place, In the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, MAKE OATH AND SAY THAT: 1. I am a chartered accountant and am the Chief Financial Officer for the Defendant Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. 2. I became employed by Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. in November 1997 and before that date I had no involvement in the License Agreement made between the parties and the dispute arising from the same. 3. The O'Neil & Company firm had acted as Thermo Tech Technologies Inc.'s solicitors in the past and when this present litigation proceeding arose the defense of the claim was assigned to that. 4. The Plaintiffs obtained a ruling July 10th, 1998 that Thermo Tech Defendants were in contempt of Court for failing to fully comply with Mr. Justice Cohen's January 20th, 1998 Order respecting the production of document. Justice Cohen conditionally imposed an aggregate $50,000.00 fine indicating the fine would not be payable if more complete production of documents was made with in seven days. 5. In order to comply with Mr. Justice Cohen's Order of July 10th, 1998, Thermo Tech's former solicitors, O'Neil & Company, obtained additional engineering documentation from Dick Engineering Inc. These documents were delivered by O'Neil & Company to the solicitors for Plaintiffs on July 17th 1998. I did not personally review the additional Dick Engineering documents, however I assumed our solicitors had taken all necessary steps to fully comply with Mr. Justice Cohen's Order and to purge any contempt that may have existed. 6. I was shocked when I learned at the end of July 1998 that the Plaintiffs' were bringing yet another contempt application, again asserting that the Thermo Tech Defendants had not made proper production of documents. I had become increasingly concerned about the manner in which our former solicitors were handling the defense of claim and this second contempt application was the straw that broke the camel's back. My concerns included, * the fact that the summary judgment of some had been obtained by a Plaintiff, International Eco-Waste Systems, S.A., who was not even a party to the License Agreement that was the subject matter of the proceedings; * the fact that summary judgment of some sort had been granted against a Defendant ( Thermo Tech Technologies Inc.) who was also not a party to the License Agreement; * the fact that the form of summary judgment granted by Justice Cohen was apparently based on admissions in the Statement of Defence and contradictory Affidavit evidence filed on behalf of the Thermo Tech Defendants; * the fact that large portions of the potentially relevant evidence (the Liebowitz Affidavit of May 19th, 1998) were ruled inadmissible on the grounds that the information was raised too late and was in any event framed as simply argument or hearsay evidence; and * the manner in which production of documents had been handled such that the Thermo Tech Defendants were eventually found in contempt. 7. In the result, I decided at the end of July 1998 that a change of legal counsel was necessary and at that point I retained the Clark, Wilson firm to assume the further defense of the litigation on behalf of the Thermo Tech Defendants. 8. Clark, Wilson have attempted to clarify certain issues with the solicitors for the Plaintiffs, thus far without success. Attached to this my Affidavit and marked as Exhibits "A" and "B" respectively in that regard, are copies of the Clark, Wilson letters dated August 10th, 1998 and September 30th 1998 directed to the solicitors for the Plaintiffs. 9. Since their retainer, Clark, Wilson has visited the Thermo Tech offices to review documents and has met with Dick Engineering in Toronto for the same purpose. They have collected and produced to the solicitors for the Plaintiffs all of the engineering documents produced by Dick Engineering Inc. as well as other engineering firms respecting the Thermo Master Plants operated or licensed by the Thermo Tech Defendants. The two lists of additional engineering documents produced to the solicitors for the Plaintiffs in that regard are attached to this Affidavit and marked collectively as Exhibit "C". 10. On behalf of the two Thermo Tech Defendants, I unconditionally apologize to Mr. Just Cohen, the Court and to both Plaintiffs for failing to comply with the Orders issued by Mr. Justice Cohen on January 20th and July 10th, 1998. I assure the Court that the Thermo Tech Defendants will make full and frank disclosure of all relevant documents in this lawsuit and will fully comply, without delay, with further Orders that may be granted in this litigation. (Thanks to Robert Pool for puting this up by Yahoo) Why would TT deliver anything new to TPP , since they claim TPP doesn't deserve them, and that they cancelled the agreement? Are they hiding the truth, again? Why is there no newsrelease about this fact. Will TPP proceed now with the damages phase of the lawsuit? What is TT worth, if anything, at this point. Comments welcome.

To: Robert Pool who wrote (4922)	10/27/1998 7:42:00 PM
From: Robert Pool	Respond to of 6467

Looks like Wayne Hansen is Rene's new scapegoat. This is the affidavit filed by TTRIF in there defense. I wonder what Mr. Cohen thinks of this!! C976669 Vancouver Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AFFIDAVIT of Wayne Hansen I Wayne Hansen, of 404 - 999 Canada Place, In the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, MAKE OATH AND SAY THAT: 1. I am a chartered accountant and am the Chief Financial Officer for the Defendant Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. 2. I became employed by Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. in November 1997 and before that date I had no involvement in the License Agreement made between the parties and the dispute arising from the same. 3. The O'Neil & Company firm had acted as Thermo Tech Technologies Inc.'s solicitors in the past and when this present litigation proceeding arose the defense of the claim was assigned to that. 4. The Plaintiffs obtained a ruling July 10th, 1998 that Thermo Tech Defendants were in contempt of Court for failing to fully comply with Mr. Justice Cohen's January 20th, 1998 Order respecting the production of document. Justice Cohen conditionally imposed an aggregate $50,000.00 fine indicating the fine would not be payable if more complete production of documents was made with in seven days. 5. In order to comply with Mr. Justice Cohen's Order of July 10th, 1998, Thermo Tech's former solicitors, O'Neil & Company, obtained additional engineering documentation from Dick Engineering Inc. These documents were delivered by O'Neil & Company to the solicitors for Plaintiffs on July 17th 1998. I did not personally review the additional Dick Engineering documents, however I assumed our solicitors had taken all necessary steps to fully comply with Mr. Justice Cohen's Order and to purge any contempt that may have existed. 6. I was shocked when I learned at the end of July 1998 that the Plaintiffs' were bringing yet another contempt application, again asserting that the Thermo Tech Defendants had not made proper production of documents. I had become increasingly concerned about the manner in which our former solicitors were handling the defense of claim and this second contempt application was the straw that broke the camel's back. My concerns included, * the fact that the summary judgment of some had been obtained by a Plaintiff, International Eco-Waste Systems, S.A., who was not even a party to the License Agreement that was the subject matter of the proceedings; * the fact that summary judgment of some sort had been granted against a Defendant ( Thermo Tech Technologies Inc.) who was also not a party to the License Agreement; * the fact that the form of summary judgment granted by Justice Cohen was apparently based on admissions in the Statement of Defence and contradictory Affidavit evidence filed on behalf of the Thermo Tech Defendants; * the fact that large portions of the potentially relevant evidence (the Liebowitz Affidavit of May 19th, 1998) were ruled inadmissible on the grounds that the information was raised too late and was in any event framed as simply argument or hearsay evidence; and * the manner in which production of documents had been handled such that the Thermo Tech Defendants were eventually found in contempt. 7. In the result, I decided at the end of July 1998 that a change of legal counsel was necessary and at that point I retained the Clark, Wilson firm to assume the further defense of the litigation on behalf of the Thermo Tech Defendants. 8. Clark, Wilson have attempted to clarify certain issues with the solicitors for the Plaintiffs, thus far without success. Attached to this my Affidavit and marked as Exhibits "A" and "B" respectively in that regard, are copies of the Clark, Wilson letters dated August 10th, 1998 and September 30th 1998 directed to the solicitors for the Plaintiffs. 9. Since their retainer, Clark, Wilson has visited the Thermo Tech offices to review documents and has met with Dick Engineering in Toronto for the same purpose. They have collected and produced to the solicitors for the Plaintiffs all of the engineering documents produced by Dick Engineering Inc. as well as other engineering firms respecting the Thermo Master Plants operated or licensed by the Thermo Tech Defendants. The two lists of additional engineering documents produced to the solicitors for the Plaintiffs in that regard are attached to this Affidavit and marked collectively as Exhibit "C". 10. On behalf of the two Thermo Tech Defendants, I unconditionally apologize to Mr. Just Cohen, the Court and to both Plaintiffs for failing to comply with the Orders issued by Mr. Justice Cohen on January 20th and July 10th, 1998. I assure the Court that the Thermo Tech Defendants will make full and frank disclosure of all relevant documents in this lawsuit and will fully comply, without delay, with further Orders that may be granted in this litigation. Signatures Enjoy folks Robert Pool