One of the proposals in Milverton's proxy calls for the removal of Richard Hawkins, who G8's auditor 2000-2002, 2006-2008 and reappointed in 2010.
Rene Branconnier's hositility towards Hawkins undoubtedly stems from the auditors testimony during the Las Vegas hearings. Hawkins said that during the Branconnier era (2000-2009) G8 was essentially a Branconnier family employment enterprise that lacked the business to justify that employment. He also testified that 80% of the funds raised from uinvestors, between 2000 and 2009, was paid out to private companies owned or controlled by Rene Branconnier. Hawkins said he did not know how a company that essentially didn't said do anything could raise so much money unless it misrepresented its affairs to investors - a violation of SEC regulations - or was money laundering.
(That was my paraphrased version of Hawkins' testimony, you can access a letter he sent the court here.)
It is easy to see why Mr Branconnier is upset and also why he would not want to raise the real issue. So Milverton keeps repeating that ridiculous story about Hawkins California accounting license being revoked as a result of his failing to pay child support. Hawkins did miss a payment while he was in China and immediately rectified the situation after returning to the US. While this result in a temporary withdrawel of his California license, Hawkins license as an auditor is through the P ublic Company Accounting Oversight Board (pp 8,9 of the attached)was not affected. Thus he was fully accredited when Daniel Wolf retained him in 2010.
Mr Branconnier and his lawyers are fully aware of this, as the issue was raised in Las Vegas. Thus I can only conclude their continued misrepresentations are deliberate, malicious and defamatory.
The real questions are: is Hawkins' depiction of G8 during the Branconnier era accurate? If so, were Mr Branconnier and his closest assocaites deliberately misrepresenting their affairs to lure in unsuspecting investors? (Some of the consultants who sold shares are both innoscent and often invested more money than their clients.) Were they laundering money? or both? |