RE:RE:RE:I've counted Does it not appear that 7 TD, 1 Anonymous, 99 Jitney are basically the market makers here? And could be the individuals mentioned here trying to intimidate Andre and not let the stock fly until he gives them the shares they are trying to collect on?
So maybe until this reaches its final outcome in the courts either way, it seems this is the pattern we will see for some time to come...?
https://www.stockwatch.com/News/Item.aspx?bid=Z-C:FGD-2268778&symbol=FGD®ion=C https://www.stockwatch.com/News/Item.aspx?bid=Z-C%3aFGD-2443442&symbol=FGD®ion=C https://www.stockwatch.com/News/Item.aspx?bid=Z-C:FGD-2417093&symbol=FGD®ion=C Additional disclosures
Retirement of forbearance agreement
The company would like to advise that it had entered into a forbearance agreement with an arm's-length lender (GC Global Capital Corp., now Fountain Asset Corp., or GCGlobal) on Aug. 31, 2015, for an amount of $812,000.
Conditions of the forbearance included: (i) that the company pay GCGlobal an amount of $100,000 on Aug. 31, 2016; (ii) that the company pay GCGlobal interest fees of $105,560; (iii) that GCGlobal receive an authorized and executed warrant to purchase 3.5 million shares at an exercise price of 11 cents per share with an expiry date of Aug. 31, 2018; (iv) that the company pay interest in the amount of 4 per cent per month; (v) that on Sept. 9, 2015, the company pay GCGlobal $324,345; (vi) that on Sept. 23, 2015, the company pay GCGlobal $419,585; (vii) that the company shall issue an aggregate of 26 million common share certificates in any combination to Paul Van Benthem, Paul Haber and Yoel Altman in connection with the acquisition transaction of LTP Financial; (viii) that the company obtain exchange approval with respect to the issuance and effectiveness of the warrants within five business days of the date of the forbearance agreement being entered into, and that the company notify GCGlobal upon obtaining such approvals.
Prior to this forbearance, the company had no intention to release the 26 million common shares until such time as the closing conditions of the LTP Financial acquisition had been met, which never occurred. The company was however forced to release the 26 million common shares to LTP under this forbearance on Aug. 31, 2015, per the exchange bulletin on April 17, 2015. The company ultimately never sought approval from the exchange for the issuance of the above-mentioned warrant, nor did it notify GCGlobal of having obtained such approval. As such, the company does not consider the warrant as having been issued.
All of the above were completed prior to the purchase of the debt from GC Global by 7159618 Manitoba Ltd. as noted below.
Moreover, all debt, $812,000 in total related to the forbearance agreement, was purchased by 7159618 Manitoba Ltd., who at the time was an arm's-length party (by agreement among 7159618 Manitoba Ltd. and GCGlobal) as previously disclosed on Dec. 1, 2015.
As a result, the forbearance agreement was retired. There is no current or future obligation to GCGlobal for the issuance of any securities or forbearance agreement.
Dismissal of the YS Capital lawsuit
Further to May 6, 2016, press release, on Jan. 11, 2016, YS Capital Inc. commenced a lawsuit against the company and others on behalf of the LTP Stakeholder Group. On April 29, 2016, the statement of claim in that lawsuit was ordered struck out with costs payable to First Global. The company is now pleased to announce that this lawsuit was dismissed on Oct. 11, 2016, by order of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice with additional costs payable to First Global.
Commencement of the LTP lawsuit
On Aug. 24, 2016, 2175015 Ontario Inc. (217 Ontario) commenced an application for leave from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to begin a lawsuit against the company on behalf of LTP Inc. for an alleged breach of contract and other relief. To date, 217 Ontario has yet to deliver any affidavits in support of its application.
First Global is of the opinion that these proceedings are frivolous and completely without merit. The company will be responding to the application, if it proceeds, and will be seeking an order dismissing the application.