Report to TSX-V for fraudulous behaviorIn my opinion, every Mitec's shareholders should report to TSX-Venture or other legal authorities for possible inappropriate or fraudulous behaviors from Mitec' directors and shareholders. I have been a shareholder for many years and some Mitec's directors and shareholders look as if they have planned a takeover of the company without giving any returned value to the minority shareholders.
Here are the facts that I recall. If I am incorrect or erronous in some fact, you should get the informations from Mitec's and Covalon's published documents and act accordingly.
1- Mitec has huge accumulated losses, around 150 millions $ of losses, with a fiscal value of close to 30 millions $ if used adequately by individuals or companies.
2- Around 2012 Mitec sold of telecom assets for close to 3 millions $ because Mitec's direction decided to reorient the company's businesses.
3- Use of the 3 millions $ for investement in Covalon by Mitec to get around 9 millions shares of Covalon. Paid price per share is close to 0.30 $ while the market was around 0.15 $ - 0.20 $ for Covalon's share. Consequently almost half of the 3 millions $ is "given" to Covalon. Note that the money was not used to start a new business as mentionned Mitec would do.
4- Since Mitec had no more money, it borrowed from Schwartz the necessary money for operations, creating large debts.
5- Buying of IP (concerning computer's security. No one knows exactly what it was since Mitec kept most informations on IP secret) from Schwartz for 5 millions Mitec's shares. Schwartz became the main shareholder of Mitec with around 5.2 millions shares.
6- Mitec paid back the debts to Schwartz by using the Covalon's share that are worth today close to 2.30 $ per share. Almost nothing remains from that investment.
7- Finally, in the last months, by reverse split of shares with a ratio of 1 new share to 5.2 millions old shares and by eleminating all fractional shares by a small paiement per fraction of share, Mitec makes Schwartz the unique shareholder of Mitec since he would have after reverse split 1 share (and not a fraction) while all other shareholders would have fractional shares.
Conclusion: Schwartz will be the unique owner of (1) the Covalon's shares (paid close to 3 millions $ by Mitec), (2) the IP on computer's security he sold to Mitec (and that was not used in any way we know of by Mitec), and (3) the residual fiscal losses with a 30 millions $ value.
I have filled in a complaint against these behaviours at the AMF (Autority des marchs financiers) in Quebec. I would suggest that all shareholders do the same in their respective province.
This is only my opinion.
PADAP23