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: Charles Evans Jeffery C.A. who wrote (5371)	4/1/1999 11:09:00 PM
From: Robert Pool	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6467

This about sums it up re-post from Yahoo. Thank you DD_Fact_Finder for your efforts. ******************************************************************** In Attendence: Counsel For the Plaintiffs D. Lunny & J. Dawson Counsel For the Defendants Nijel Kent Counsel Representing Rene Branconnnier & Dr. Dan Cumming Personally Switer(sp?) Gallery: 11 in attendence: 9 For the Plaintiffs of which 3 were Directors of Trooper 1 For the Defendants - namely Wayne Hansen: 1 Court Reporter from the Financial Post. Court conviened at 10:25 am. The first order of business was to determine what issues would be dealt with this date. Counsel for the Plaintiffs originally was seeking that the "contempt" issue be dealt with as well as issuance of a committal order for Rene Branconnier and Dr. Dan Cumming. Cousel for the Defendants wanted to deal with a "Clarification" of the original Order set down by Justice Cohen on January 20, 1998 in addition to the "contempt" issue. Mr. Lunny was strongly opposed to the "Clarification" issue and felt that only the "contempt" should be dealt with. To accommodate Defendants request for "Clarification" it was decided that only the issue of "contempt" would be dealt with and Mr. Lunny proceeded with "contempt" instead of punishment issues so that the issue of "Clarification" could be put off for another hearing. Chronology of events: The first contempt application was March 10, 1998 with Thermo Tech Technologies purported compliance on March 11, 1998 consisting of the "updated" 1992 Manual with cosmetic changes. June 12, 1998. Hearing in Chambers dealing with admissibility of Liebowitz affidavit. June 19, 1998. Determined Liebowitz affidavit inadmissible due to hearsay, hearsay upon hearsay and argument. Collateral attack on first order. Final Submissions by Plaintiffs & Defendants. July 10, 1998. Found to be in contempt of court and given 7 days to comply with the Order of January 20th or face fines of $25,000.00 for each of the two Defendants namely Thermo Tech Technologies & Thermo Tech Waste Systems Inc. July 17, 1998. Appeal was dismissed. Purported compliance with one small box of documents and some design drawings. The whole of the "documents" were prepared as at July 16th 1998. It was argued that they could not be what was named in the Order of January 20, since they did not exist at that time. Subsequently, J.D. Hole of Lockerbie & Hole purused the "documents" received by the Plaintiffs for accuracy and completeness. The drawings were edited drawings that had details removed or changed that would render them insufficient to construct a Thermo Master Plant. September 30th and again on Otcober 5th, 1998 on the eve of the first appearance of the refreshed "contempt" hearing Thermo Tech Technologies delivered to the Plaintiffs volumes of documents even though they had claimed full compliance on July 17th. On October 19, 1998 CFO Wayne Hansen acknowledged that they were indeed in "contempt" of court and that they would comply forthwith. Wayne Hansen now aware of the situation took control to assure compliance. While Wayne Hansen is the CFO he is not a Dirctor of the Company and can not mitigate the responsibility of Rene Branconnier & Dr. Dan Cumming. Mr Lunny submitted to his Lordship that each of the Defendants be fined an additional amount of $100,000.00 for the continued and blatant contempt, specail costs and that Rene Branconnier & Dr. Dan Cumming be found "personally" in contempt. 11:15 Counsel for the Defendants Nijel Kent O'Neil & Company received the documents from Lockerbie in July. Wayne Hansen was "shocked" to find that Trooper Technologies refreshed the "contempt" issue on July 28th. In August 1998 Thermo Tech Technologies retained the services of the Law Firm Clarke & Wilson. The new Firm attended the offices of Thermo Tech Technologies and their agents in both Vancouver and Ontario to seek out all pertinant documents required for full compliance of the order. 11:30 Recess 11:45 Court Reconviened. Counsel Kent on behalf of Defendant. Four points of argument: 1) July 10th order remedy stated that there would be a $50,000.00 fine. Thermo Tech Technologies paid the fine on March 31st, 1999 on the eve of the continued "contempt" hearing. 2) Contempt has been purged as of the beginning of October 1998. 3) Insufficient evidence to find the individuals Rene Branconnier & Dr. Dan Cumming in contempt 4) No further punishment is required. They did not comply however they took the steps to remedy the "contempt" Trooper has now received all documents and have had them in their posession for six months. Furthermore, the court had received an unconditional apology from Wayne Hansen. The Defendants acknowledged the contempt and assured all further orders would be complied with. Three Cases used for reference: 1) Apotecks(sp?) For Civil Contempt the first issue is "Compliance" and the secondary issue is punishment. Counsel Kent said Thermo Tech Technologies et al had not complied with the order in a timely fashion and have no excuse for the delay. The Defendants suggest that compliance was met and that further action was unnecessary. Reliance on Legal Advise can be a mitigating factor. Legal Advise has been changed along with the Defendants. Furthermore, apologizing to the courts is also a mitigating factor and Wayne Hansen had apologized to the Court. 2) Magteer(sp?) The case was based on the "apology" not being Sincere. When a sincere apology to the court was provided they sought a return of the fines paid. Thermo Tech Technologies has not made application to the court for a reduced or returned fine. The July 10th ruling contemplated the punishment. Kent further stated Mr. Lunny had muddled thinking and that no further punishment is necessary. Trooper wants punishment for Rene Branconnier & Dr. Dan Cumming. Why does Trooper want to villify Rene Branconnier? Rule 56 can impose a punishment on Officers and Directors of a Company, however, a very high standard of proof is required. Stan Lis' belief of conspiracy was not admissible. 3) Glazer(sp?) Information on "belief" is inadmissible. 12:15 pm Defense argument finished. Mr. Lunny's remarks followed: Mr Lunny's first point was that CFO Wayne Hansen was employed only one month before the "action" was filed in fall of 1997 and has no knowledge of breaches. The unconditional apology must come from the wrong-doer. The apology should have come from Rene Branconnier & Dr. Dan Cumming. The Hansen apology was not complete because he did not purge the "contempt" until payment of the fine on March 31, 1999. The apology was not timely and immediate. In the press release July 24th, 1998 Thermo Tech Technologies had stated they had satisfied the court order, however, with the issuance of further documents on September 30th and October 5th the news release was erroneous. Furthermore, Rene Branconnier in the July 24th Release stated he would vigorously protect and defend Thermo Tech Technologies and maintian an aggressive defense posture. Justice Cohen ordered that both parties be present when rendering his dicision of whether Thermo Tech Technologies and individiuals Rene Branconnier & Dr. Dan Cumming are in "contempt" Next court appearance dictated by the Counsels' availability. 12:26 Court Adjourned ********************************************** In the Time Honored Tradition of Thermo Tech Technologies: DISCLAIMER While these points are to the best of my knowledge, recall & note taking the writer assumes no responsibility for their accuracy.