RedHawk Holdings Corp (fka SNDD)

[Jellyfish]

One Litigation. We would be at multiple pennies by now if it wasn't for that, but it was done with purpose and almost over. We had one scumbag. One rat. One parasite who goes by the name of Schreiby that infiltrated the organization. Pest control took care of him. Old Schreiby, a total loser who was not smart enough to see what Redhawk was building. Company is as strong as ever. Dr. Drew Pinsky and Derek Theler are official SANND spokespersons. Mr. Darcy Klug our Chairman is Legit. A honest southern gentleman. SANND look great and will save lives. 3 brand new SANND coming soon. The Redhawk team is currently showing off the SANND at CSNO2020.

https://www.needledestructiondevice.com/coming-soon/

Schreiber Litigation
 
On January 31, 2017, the Company and Beechwood Properties, LLC (“Beechwood”) filed suit against Daniel J. Schreiber (“Mr. Schreiber”) and the Daniel J. Schreiber Living Trust – Dtd 2/08/95 (“Schreiber Trust”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “Louisiana Court”) under Civil Action No. 2:2017cv819-B(3) (the “Louisiana Lawsuit”).
 
Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust answered the Louisiana Lawsuit and counter-claimed against the Company and Beechwood and made additional claims against Mr. G. Darcy Klug (“Mr. Klug”) in the Louisiana Lawsuit. Mr. Klug is an officer and director of RedHawk and is sole owner of Beechwood. Mr. Klug also holds voting control of RedHawk.
 
On April 24, 2017, Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust also filed suit against the Company, Mr. Klug and six (6) other defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California under Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00824-WQH-BLM which case was dismissed without prejudice on September 26, 2017 (the “California Lawsuit” and along with the Louisiana Lawsuit, the “Litigations”).
 
On March 22, 2019, the parties to the Litigations have entered into a Settlement Agreement and General Release (“Settlement Agreement”) to resolve all issues arising out of the subject matter of the Litigation.
 

 18
 
In consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and conditions contained in the Settlement Agreement, the parties to the Litigation agreed that (i) Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust shall transfer all Company stock they presently own (52,377,108 common shares) to the Company and (ii) the Company shall (a) make to Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust a cash payment of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars (US$250,000.00) and (b) issue two Promissory Notes, each in the principal amount of Two Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars (US$200,000.00), one of which shall be due and payable on or before September 6, 2020 and the other shall be due and payable on or before September 5, 2021. As a result of this Settlement Agreement, we have recorded a loss of $471,880 in the year ended June 30, 2019.
  

 19


Each Promissory Note shall be non-interest bearing, however each (i) shall bear a $15,000 late penalty if the principal amount is not repaid by the due date and (ii) shall bear interest at a rate of 18% per annum, from the issue date, if the principal is not repaid by the 30th date after the due date.
 
Pursuant to a Security Agreement between the parties, Mr. Klug and Beechwood secured the Company’s obligations to the Schreiber Trust under the Settlement Agreement by granting first-priority security interests in (i) 1,000 shares of Mr. Klug’s Series B Preferred Company Stock; and 1,473 shares of Mr. Klug’s Series A Preferred Company Stock, and (ii) Beechwood’s interest in the Tower Hotels Fund 2014, LLC.
 
Following the quarter ended September 30, 2019, on October 11, 2019, Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (the “Motion”) with the Louisiana Court alleging that the Company has failed to comply with its obligations under the Settlement Agreement. The Motion seeks to accelerate the amounts owed to Mr. Schreiber and the Schreiber Trust under the Settlement Agreement as well as attorneys’ fees. The Company believes the Motion is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the Motion.