RedHawk Holdings Corp (fka SNDD)

[Divest]

Who said that it had to be in the filings? Not every little lawsuit need be filed. Unless a lawsuit threatens more than 10% of a company's assets, is filed by a current/ former officer of the company, a 5% shareholder or involves a governmental/ regulatory agency the decision of the company on whether or not it reports pending litigation a decision made by the company and its attorneys. Here's a good link if you would like to read more on that subject:

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/happens-company-not-disclose-lawsuit-78241.html

Now that's what I know, now I'm going to show how we can glean from the company's filings the exact day and method that the company used to pay of the debt in question. First we need to go back to Pacer and look at the settlement agreement:



Did you notice the settlement date? I"ll zoom in so everyone can see it:



Now let's look at the 2019 10K:

On June 20, 2019, RedHawk Holdings Corp. entered into a Stock Exchange Agreement (“Exchange Agreement”) with Beechwood. G. Darcy Klug, the Company’s Chairman of the Board, Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, is the sole member and manager of Beechwood. Under the Exchange Agreement, the Company purchased from Beechwood 113,700,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, $0.001 par value per share (“Common Stock”), in exchange for 1,277 shares of the Company’s 5% Series A Preferred Stock and a Stock Purchase Warrant (“Warrant”) to acquire 113,508,450 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.005 per share (collectively, the “Transactions”). The Warrant expires June 20, 2029.

 

Concurrent with the execution of the Exchange Agreement, holders of $574,250 aggregate principal amount of the Company’s 5% convertible promissory notes (“Notes”), including accrued interest, converted their Notes into 114,849,929 shares of Common Stock. The extinguishment of the notes and the related accrued interest for the shares of common stock resulted in a gain on extinguishment of $375,000 based on the closing price of the common stock as of the exchange date.

So as stated I stated earlier today this is old and irrelevant to current investors. I guess if someone really hates current managment and was looking to hurt current investors, one could claim that the company and its attorneys should have made this matter easier for everyone to understand at the time. Personal preference is fine, but it doesn't mean that the company did anything wrong, and agian there is no evidence that it did. Besides,if we read court documents it seems that Schreiber and his attorneys were very much aware of the above events and used it in their arguments.

I'm sure that all longtime investors would like to see Schreiber's case dismissed with prejudice just like Auctus Fund's case was.