MyECheck, Inc. (fka MYEC)

[Mistral]

There is no confidentiality issue with the Centric Gateway Agreement. No sub-licensee is named. Ed used the FOIA process to ensure privacy where needed.

On March 7, 2016, MyECheck, Inc. (“Company”) entered into a software license and agency agreement (the “License Agreement”) with Centric Gateway Limited (“Licensee”) to market and distribute Company’s proprietary payments processing technology throughout the continent of Africa. The initial term of the License Agreement is five (5) years. Under the terms of the License Agreement, Company will also provide implementation and maintenance services for the licensed products.

The Company intends to submit a Freedom of Information Act Confidential Treatment Request to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, requesting that it be permitted to redact certain portions of the License Agreement. The omitted material will be included in the request for confidential treatment.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1619558/000114420416087605/v434135_8k.htm

The original MOU and Letter Award between the bank and Centric Gateway was executed long before MEC acquired Seergate. Although MEC was not a party to these agreements in 2013, Ed has asked that people not mentioned the bank by name. Ed and the Seergate team have never publicly revealed the name of the bank or a bank employee throughout this process.

The person who managed the Form 10-12G submission process inadvertently uploaded the historical exhibits without redaction. She didn't understand this was required or how to properly redact information in the paper exhibits. The error was identified and corrected to the best of her ability. Her error was not intentional or a breach of contract.

JRW1515 WROTE:

Exactly. When the agreement with Centric was uploaded with the SEC the names were redacted because the name of the bank is supposed to be confidential, BUT if you hovered your mouse over the so called redacted parts the name of the bank appears.

Here comes this document which looks like an attempt to redact UBA but we can still see it.

If everything Ed says is true, then he is doing a horrible job living up to the confidentially requirements of his agreement

I think the deal is fake and he wants us to see these names in the agreements while giving us the impression he is trying to redact the names.