AI
Office of Precrimes: Focus GRXI
Once again GTREX Capital (GRXI) is on the Derbenski radar. Strangely enough, when I penned a small write-up on GRXI’s CEO trip to the Turks and Caicos just a couple of days ago, it was promptly deleted by a GRXI board moderator.
Obviously, someone was out to muffle opinion. That right there should alarm any message board reader that the board is biased in favor of positive postings. Additionally however, it pointed out that we were treading on a very sensitive area in which exposure was quite unwelcome.
Naturally this called for a deeper probe into the matter. That was when I discovered a minute detail that had previously gone unnoticed. While perusing the SEC Filings, I came across a striking revelation having to do with the date of a settlement. The following wording in the file caught my eye.
GTREX CAPITAL, INC. (GRXI) 10KSB filed 5/9/2007
“On March 2, 2007, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement with Sequoia International, Inc., which had purchased the note payable from Elleipsis, Inc. on March 1, 2007.”
Apparently, Sequoia International purchased the debt on the day the note was due. However this is where the "Office of Precrimes" comes into the picture. How is it a precrime? Because the lawsuit against GRXI was filed in Sarasota prior to Sequoia owning the note and before the note went into default. The following are the docket lines from the lawsuit.
3/7/2007 ANSWER
3/6/2007 ANSWER - TO THE COMPLAINT
3/2/2007 ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
2/27/2007 COMPLAINT Attorney: TURFFS, ROBERT EDWIN (0363391) Receipt: 348201 Date: 02/27/2007
2/27/2007 CIVIL COVER SHEET
http://clerk.co.sarasota.fl.us/srqapp/civdetail.asp?tb_searchby=Company&tb_searchfor=2007+CA+002114+NC
How exactly is it that you can file a lawsuit?
A. Before you own the note.
B. Before it goes into default?
For in the same filing it states:
“Under the terms of the Elleipsis note payable, the Company was required to pay remaining principal of $190,000 plus accrued interest on March 1, 2007 to satisfy the note.”
Clearly this seems to me to be totally improper to file a claim prior to default and prior to having ownership of the defaulted debt. However as you can see, the claim was settled the day after going into default. Should we not also be questioning however why the companies answer to the complaint was filed after they had agreed on a settlement? The following statement is clearly untrue.
“The Company defaulted on this payment and Sequoia filed an action against the Company in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court.”
Isn’t it the other way around? The action was filed and then the default occurred.
Now what exactly was the settlement?
“The settlement agreement provided for the Company to issue a total of 934,000,000 shares of common stock for full satisfaction and release of the obligation. The Company and Sequoia agreed that the shares would be issued into an escrow account to prevent their immediate resale into the market. Under the terms of the escrow, Sequoia may not obtain any shares from escrow in the release of such escrow shares would result in Sequoia becoming the beneficial owner of more than 9.9% of the Company’s common stock. Further, all shares in escrow are voted by the Company’s chairman of the Board of Directors.“
Now let’s see what has transpired with these settlement shares since March 2nd.
“As of September 30, 2007, a total of 100,000,000 shares had been released from escrow. The Company received $244,206 resulting from the surplus of the liquidation of the shares over and above that to which Sequoia was entitled to receive.”
That means that there are another 834,000,000 shares waiting to be sold by Sequoia. Apparently Sequoia has already been paid the $190,000 plus interest and the company has received an additional $244,206.
Was the intent of the lawsuit funding for the company under the guise of settlement of defaulted debt?
And wasn’t the person standing on the other side of the transaction Steve Peacock’s ex partner in Javelin Advisory Group, Mr. Shane Traveller?
Derb
Once again GTREX Capital (GRXI) is on the Derbenski radar. Strangely enough, when I penned a small write-up on GRXI’s CEO trip to the Turks and Caicos just a couple of days ago, it was promptly deleted by a GRXI board moderator.
Obviously, someone was out to muffle opinion. That right there should alarm any message board reader that the board is biased in favor of positive postings. Additionally however, it pointed out that we were treading on a very sensitive area in which exposure was quite unwelcome.
Naturally this called for a deeper probe into the matter. That was when I discovered a minute detail that had previously gone unnoticed. While perusing the SEC Filings, I came across a striking revelation having to do with the date of a settlement. The following wording in the file caught my eye.
GTREX CAPITAL, INC. (GRXI) 10KSB filed 5/9/2007
“On March 2, 2007, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement with Sequoia International, Inc., which had purchased the note payable from Elleipsis, Inc. on March 1, 2007.”
Apparently, Sequoia International purchased the debt on the day the note was due. However this is where the "Office of Precrimes" comes into the picture. How is it a precrime? Because the lawsuit against GRXI was filed in Sarasota prior to Sequoia owning the note and before the note went into default. The following are the docket lines from the lawsuit.
3/7/2007 ANSWER
3/6/2007 ANSWER - TO THE COMPLAINT
3/2/2007 ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
2/27/2007 COMPLAINT Attorney: TURFFS, ROBERT EDWIN (0363391) Receipt: 348201 Date: 02/27/2007
2/27/2007 CIVIL COVER SHEET
http://clerk.co.sarasota.fl.us/srqapp/civdetail.asp?tb_searchby=Company&tb_searchfor=2007+CA+002114+NC
How exactly is it that you can file a lawsuit?
A. Before you own the note.
B. Before it goes into default?
For in the same filing it states:
“Under the terms of the Elleipsis note payable, the Company was required to pay remaining principal of $190,000 plus accrued interest on March 1, 2007 to satisfy the note.”
Clearly this seems to me to be totally improper to file a claim prior to default and prior to having ownership of the defaulted debt. However as you can see, the claim was settled the day after going into default. Should we not also be questioning however why the companies answer to the complaint was filed after they had agreed on a settlement? The following statement is clearly untrue.
“The Company defaulted on this payment and Sequoia filed an action against the Company in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court.”
Isn’t it the other way around? The action was filed and then the default occurred.
Now what exactly was the settlement?
“The settlement agreement provided for the Company to issue a total of 934,000,000 shares of common stock for full satisfaction and release of the obligation. The Company and Sequoia agreed that the shares would be issued into an escrow account to prevent their immediate resale into the market. Under the terms of the escrow, Sequoia may not obtain any shares from escrow in the release of such escrow shares would result in Sequoia becoming the beneficial owner of more than 9.9% of the Company’s common stock. Further, all shares in escrow are voted by the Company’s chairman of the Board of Directors.“
Now let’s see what has transpired with these settlement shares since March 2nd.
“As of September 30, 2007, a total of 100,000,000 shares had been released from escrow. The Company received $244,206 resulting from the surplus of the liquidation of the shares over and above that to which Sequoia was entitled to receive.”
That means that there are another 834,000,000 shares waiting to be sold by Sequoia. Apparently Sequoia has already been paid the $190,000 plus interest and the company has received an additional $244,206.
Was the intent of the lawsuit funding for the company under the guise of settlement of defaulted debt?
And wasn’t the person standing on the other side of the transaction Steve Peacock’s ex partner in Javelin Advisory Group, Mr. Shane Traveller?
Derb
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
