Hi Nathan, chew on this;
Turbodyne Technologies Inc -
Witness uncomplimentary of plaintiff Holt
Turbodyne Technologies Inc
TRBDF
Shares issued 41,154,772
1899-12-30 close $0
Wednesday Nov 11 1998
The civil trial between plaintiff Bradley Holt and defendant Turbodyne Technologies continued
yesterday in Supreme Court.
A witness for the plaintiff who was supposed to recall the "extraordinary behaviour" of Turbodyne
Technologies founder Edward Halimi for lawyer M.G. Madryga and his client, former Turbodyne
financier Bradley Holt, instead revealed Holt as having "a complete lack of knowledge" regarding the
company's business affairs.
The turnabout came during the opening hours of a B.C. Supreme Court trial yesterday in which Mr.
Holt, of Minneapolis, claims Mr. Halimi welched on a deal allowing him to purchase 750,000 company
shares as payment for improving its standing in the financial community. He is seeking damages in
excess of $5-million.
The case is more high-profile publicity for the company since the disappearance of its director, Nicolaas
Masee, and his wife Lisa, in August of 1994. Mr. Masee was the former banker and colleague of
Vancouver stock promoter Harry Moll, whose group originally controlled Turbodyne when the
technological development firm was known as Clear View Ventures.
Mr. Madryga told Mr. Justice Wally Oppal in his opening statement that Dr. Dorriah Page, Turbodyne's
former Vice President of Transportation, Technologies and Emissions, would demonstrate the
"extraordinary behaviour" exhibited by Halimi in refusing to issue more than 100,000 of common
shares at $2 per share to Mr. Holt. He claims the deal was struck in May of 1995 in lieu of him
collecting a salary as the firm's vice president of business development.
When questioned by Mr. Madryga, Ms. Page testified she had travelled with Mr. Holt to Sweden and
New York in December of 1995 and January of 1996 to drum up corporate interest in Turbodyne, which
is based in California. She said the first trip resulted in a joint venture agreement with the SAAB
automobile manufacturer, and the second trip eventually netted her employer $10-million in financing.
She then went on to say that she was forced by Mr. Halimi in the summer of 1996 to write two
memorandums discrediting Holt, who had recently left the company and who Halimi reportedly
complained was trying to "screw over" Turbodyne. In the memorandums, backdated to the times of the
two business trips, Ms. Page describes Holt as having "completely dropped the ball" on one occasion
and discouraging potential investors by incorrectly stating the amount of Turbodyne's outstanding
shares. Ms. Page also wrote that she was "amazed at his complete lack of knowledge."
She told the court that Mr. Holt had indeed supplied incorrect information about Turbodyne but said he
had "not been given enough time to prepare" for the New York meeting. "I was embarrassed for him,"
she remarked. She added, however, that she agreed to write the memorandums in order "to protect" the
company's interests.
Turbodyne lawyer Robert Breivik forced Page into revealing that while the Sweden trip was a success, a
prior business meeting in Amsterdam at which Mr. Holt allegedly had asked business associates to
attend fell apart when these associates did not show up. He also pointed out that Ms. Page had
characterized her colleague's use of a travel agent card to get discounts on airfare and hotel rates as a
"compromise of character and integrity." As Ms. Page's responses grew increasingly inaudible, Mr.
Breivik concluded that "nobody forced you to author these memos. They were just some of many you
wrote badmouthing people in the company."
When Mr. Holt took the stand, he corroborated accounts of the botched Amsterdam meeting and his
poor performance in New York, which he attributed to "a lack of information flow to me in
Minneapolis." He said he was introduced to Turbodyne by a Vancouver promoter named Nathan
Hanson, and joined the company in May of 1995 to act as a liaison between it and capital markets - a
service he claims to have been providing since 1983.
Mr. Holt said he told Halimi that he preferred to buy up to 5 per cent of any public company he serviced
in lieu of a salary, and that in May Mr. Halimi faxed him a document stating he would be issued options
to purchase shares in the following amount: 100,000 at $2; 100,000 at $3.50; 250,000 at $5; 100,000 at
$6; and 200,000 at $7.50. This document was presented as evidence, as were documents pertaining to
the deal which Holt signed with Turbodyne accountant Leon Nowek in June of 1995 but "only glanced
over at best."
He told Mr. Madryga that there never had been any discussion about regulatory policies concerning the
issuance of stock. Shortly after purchasing the first 100,000 shares of stock for $200,000 in cash, Mr.
Holt provided $350,000 for the second purchase, only to be told by Halimi there were no more shares
available. "He told me he could set new options at a higher price," he recalled, adding that the proposed
price of $13-$16 per share was unacceptable. "Halimi told me if I didn't like it, go get a lawyer."
The solidly-built, soft-spoken Holt grew visibly agitated during his 20 minute cross-examination. His
main source of discomforture was defence's accusation that he had sold his 100,000 Turbodyne shares
for over $1-million after having worked a mere 300 hours in total for the company. "What's 300 divided
into $1-million? That's a lot of money," mused Mr. Breivik. "Yes it is, should I give some back?"
retorted Holt. "We thought about that," the lawyer replied, "but no, that's yours to keep." Mr. Holt's
face grew red when Mr. Breivik made a point of reaffirming that Holt was asking the court to pay a
further $5 million to him. "I never actually took out a calculator to add up the amount," he said.
Mr. Breivik wound up his cross-examination by charging that Holt's brief career at Turbodyne was
marked by repeated failures. Mr. Holt grew visibly angry when Breivik revealed that the financier had
phoned Halimi shortly after the New York incident and declared, "Ed, an ape could have done a better
job than I did."
The defence lawyer accused the plaintiff of demanding 650,000 additional funds even though Mr.
Halimi informed him he had never agreed to a deal to give 750,000 shares to any one individual. He said
a close examination of the documents Holt signed were for the issuance of 100,000 shares only.
These accusations are expected to be challenged by Mr. Madryga when court reconvenes today.
(c) Copyright 1998 Canjex Publishing Ltd. canada-stockwatch.com
|
