Aurora Cannabis sues former Prescient president Marc Levy
Aurora Cannabis sues former Prescient president Levy
2016-03-04 19:54 ET - News Release
Mr. Terry Booth reports
AURORA COMMENCES LEGAL ACTION AGAINST FORMER PRESIDENT OF PRESCIENT MINING CORP.
On Feb. 25, 2016, Aurora Cannabis Inc. commenced legal action against Marc Levy, the former president and director of Prescient Mining Corp., as well as five other personal and corporate defendants, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unjust enrichment, payments owed to the company and contractual disputes. Prescient changed its name to Aurora Cannabis Inc. while completing a reverse takeover (RTO) with Aurora Marijuana Inc. that was completed on Dec. 9, 2014. Mr. Levy remained a director of the company post-RTO until Aug. 10, 2015.
The lawsuit was filed in connection with a number of inappropriate actions taken by the defendants that were not in the best interests of the company prior to completion of the RTO and during the time period that Mr. Levy remained a director of the company post-RTO. Accordingly, the company is seeking legal remedies and appropriate damages.
"We are committed to protecting the interests of the shareholders of the company," said Terry Booth, chief executive officer of the company. "Aurora is deeply concerned by the actions of the defendants, and we intend to take all steps necessary to protect our shareholders and to move forward acting in the best interests of the company."
The company has been named in a proceeding commenced by Mr. Levy's mother, Riva Dubrofsky, pertaining to the repayment of a loan that was made prior to the completion of the RTO. The company is defending this claim on the basis that the loan's rate of interest is in excess of, or would result in the lender receiving interest in excess of, the criminal interest rate.
The company has also been named in a proceeding commenced by Cannavest Capital Corp., in which Ms. Dubrofsky is a principal, in relation to the purported exercise of certain warrants. The company is vigorously defending this claim on the basis that the plaintiff failed to perform its obligations and fundamentally breached the terms of the agreement pursuant to which the warrants were issued.
We seek Safe Harbor.