To Fellow Longs,
I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas & wishing all the best for a great new year in 2011.....I wanted to share some thoughts concerning LE CRAM and our investment saga that appears to be over.....
Our journey began in the summer of 2007 and it seemingly ends in 2010 over greed.......
From Huppe to the Ect Recovery team? to the 3 B's (Bain, Belanger & Bertone brothers) here we are in 2011 in BK, with scattered CRAMS & Dreams laying in the shattered stormy path of GREED & CORRUPTION..... with many investors losing 100's of thousand of dollars...
Shareholders tried to convince Bain to stop the proceedings; calls were made, letters & emails sent. Face to face meetings with Bains Lawyer were arranged. We tried all efforts to convince the individuals involved to cease these proceedings & save the shareholders. Money was even sent by some longs to help in lawyers fees over the last 2 years.
******************************************************************
Setember 2010 ECT Investors Alliance letter
September 11, 2010
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr. M. Gordon Bain
c/o Group Ocean, Inc.
105, rue Abraham-Martin
Quebec City, Quebec G1K 8N1
Canada
Mr. Alphonse Belanger
c/o Quebec Stevedoring Company Limited (QSL)
2070, avenue de la Riviere-Jaune
Quebec City, Quebec G2N 1T2
Canada
Re:Effective Control Transport, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“ECT”)
Gentlemen:
The individuals on the undersigned partial list are citizens of the United States, and as long-term investors in ECT have structured a coalition (the “ECT Investors Alliance”), dedicated to the purposes of protecting and advancing our mutual interests. The ECT Investors Alliance consists of several major shareholders and creditors of ECT, counting as members a number of American professionals, including doctors, psychologists, a pastor, an attorney and ethicist, as well as persons involved in transportation, insurance, finance, telecommunications, real estate, tourism and recreation, and other fields. We estimate that we own approximately 30-50 million shares of ECT, and we are continuing to seek out other individuals with comparable interests.
The ECT Investors Alliance is contacting each of you at this time to express our serious concerns about any possible threat to the future financial posture of ECT, which would obviously constitute a direct threat to our joint interests as well. It is our understanding that you are, like some of us, shareholders and creditors of ECT, and that you are aware of the distressed financial circumstances that the company presently faces. For this reason, we would initially be inclined to believe that your interests with respect to ECT should be fully aligned with our own. Namely, we would assume that, like us, you strongly desire that the company recover from its existing financial troubles, and succeed as a viable business enterprise, which as you know, involves the completion of the development of the CRAM technology.
The ECT Investors Alliance has recently learned, however, that each of you has apparently acquired certain of ECT’s outstanding debt obligations, and that litigation in the Quebec courts over the satisfaction of those debts may be contemplated, perhaps with the objective of forcing ECT into bankruptcy, and effectively wiping out the interests of its many shareholders. While we can appreciate the efforts of any creditor or shareholder to enforce his legal rights, we must vigorously disapprove of, and we will most certainly oppose, any such effort if taken at the direct expense of ECT’s other shareholders.
Many of us have invested substantial portions of our savings into the ECT venture, and sincerely believe that the company’s potential for success is enormous. For that reason, we must construe any potential threat to ECT’s survival as a profoundly personal matter, not just a business matter. We are aware, of course, that ECT has endured considerable turmoil in its short history, but we are resolved to remain patient, given the latent value of the CRAM technology.
As you both will recall, one year ago a convincing majority of ECT’s shareholders voted to reclaim our rightful ownership of the company, to install a competent Board of Directors, and to continue moving towards the goal of bringing the CRAM to an expected worldwide market. It is our understanding that each of you supported the solicitation proposals, and that like us, you believed that such joint shareholder action was warranted in light of the previous regime’s mismanagement. Although the validity of the shareholder vote was disputed, our confidence was promptly restored when justice was decisively achieved – in an American court of law.
Despite the progress resulting from the turnover in ECT’s management, in our view the company now stands at a critical stage. The company is saddled with the debts incurred by the former management, but has no business revenues with which to pay its creditors. On the other hand, the company still possesses an extremely promising but intangible asset – its intellectual property rights to the CRAM technology. In an attempt to resolve these problems and move the company forward, the ECT Board has recently proposed the creation of a new, private Canadian corporation, to be formed with original investment capital, which would operate in tandem with ECT as the exclusive licensee and developer of its technology.
The ECT Investors Alliance has carefully examined and evaluated the Board’s proposal, and strongly favors its implementation. We have concluded that the Board’s plan, in a remarkably equitable manner, simultaneously accommodates the interests of ECT’s creditors, the interests of ECT’s shareholders, and the interests of the new investors. Put simply, under the Board’s current proposal, everyone benefits and no one loses.
With this in mind, several members of the ECT Investors Alliance have been assisting the Board in pursuing new investment capital, pursuant to the terms being proposed. Our efforts along these lines, as well as those of the Board itself, are ongoing. We believe that it is only a matter of time before a suitable arrangement will be reached with a group of new investors.
As mentioned above, the interests of the members of the ECT Investors Alliance, and the interests of each of you as shareholders and creditors of ECT, would appear to be compatible ones. As a result, all of us are, or at least all of us should be, “on the same page” in this challenging endeavor. There appears to be no rational necessity – for any of us – to strike any kind of adversarial posture towards the others.
In other words, if we can all focus our resources in a determined effort to advance our common interests, everyone benefits and no one loses.
Accordingly, we genuinely hope that it is not, in fact, your present intention to exploit your current status as two of ECT’s creditors in a manner that inequitably threatens to have this fledgling but possibly world-changing enterprise – which as you are well aware, remains an American corporation established under the laws of the State of Delaware – placed into an involuntary bankrupt status. But if this is your intention, then the members of the ECT Investors Alliance, and all others with similar interests, will have no choice but to take all necessary and appropriate steps to assert and protect their own interests and legal rights, to the full extent permitted under the law, with all of the resources at their collective disposal.
Under that kind of reciprocally hostile scenario, the various parties will inevitably end up in the courts of law, litigating the specifics of their respective claims and legal rights, possibly for several years. Predictably, it will be the lawyers who accumulate the greatest benefits from that process, to the proportional detriment of the parties, and as typically occurs in such protracted cases, all of the parties will eventually walk away disappointed and dissatisfied. Which is to say – nobody wins, everybody loses.
That is not what we want, and we cannot fathom that such an ultimate waste of time, effort, and money is what anyone wants.
As we see it, if the Board’s dual-entity recovery plan can be implemented successfully, resulting in the final development and marketing of the CRAM device, the bottom line is that there will be more than enough financial rewards for everyone involved. It was only three years ago, after all, that ECT’s shares were trading at prices that were approaching one dollar. Yet that result was accomplished on little more than overly-optimistic speculation and rumor, which sidestepped the real-world problems that the Board is now openly acknowledging and addressing. We ask you to imagine, by contrast, ECT as a legitimate, debt-free technology licensor, with minimal operating costs, with regular royalty payments as its revenues, with yearly earnings per share, and paying dividends. Is there any question that the trading price of ECT’s shares could once again approach, and likely exceed, those previous highs?
And as an added consequence, would we not have the moral satisfaction of knowing that our shared efforts have facilitated the implementation of a device that saves lives?
Messrs. Bain and Belanger, the undersigned individuals therefore make this personal appeal to each of you. If we disregard the fact that our interests are essentially harmonious, and if we proceed to steer mutually antagonistic headings, we will not only have dissipated our resources in frustrating legal wrangling, but most importantly, we will have missed participating in what appears to be the opportunity of a lifetime. We sincerely believe, then, that the most profitable route for all parties involved in the ECT endeavor is clear – to help the company recover, and to help the company succeed.
Given these considerations, the ECT Investors Alliance respectfully solicits your response to this expression of our serious concerns. Although our members are located across the United States, making a face-to-face meeting impractical, a delegation representing our membership (as indicated below) is willing to arrange a telephonic conference with the two of you, if you so desire, to discuss these matters further.
Gentlemen, your kind attention and consideration are appreciated.
******************************************************************
Gordon,
By now, you have received the letter from the US shareholders concerning the court action you initiated that will be taking place in October. I am sure you lawyer has read the letter as well. I wanted here in the email to share some other thoughts concerning both of our investments in a personal way.
I understand that a year ago you had made some proposal to the ECT Recovery Board to bring the CRAM to the market an offer your financing to the project. If I understand correctly, the board refused because they thought that your offer did not have the best interests of the shareholders as a priority. I (we) shareholders never were given this opportunity to see this plan that you and Alphonse proposed. It was done in confidentiality with the ECT Recovery Board. We were never given the opportunity vote on this plan.
Now that you and Alphonse have taken this matter in your own hands, and accelerated the process in court to gain access to the IP, I am uncertain of the intentions you both have in mind to bring the CRAM to market.
I am unsure if you are going to protect the interests of all shareholders. (Basically the abc's of the shareholder letter)
What I would like to propose to you and Alphonse is an alternative to the court proceedings. I think we should call a shareholder meeting and present the plan you had offered to the ECT Recovery Board. It should be simple to propose and organize the meeting. I am sure you could even make modifications to the plan you had offered. I think if the shareholders were given the opportunity to look at the plan and vote on its' proposals we could all benefit. If a vote came out as a "yes", we would save valuable time and money on lawyers and court costs. Most likely the cost of a shareholder meeting would be far less than paying lawyers and having this matter linger in the courts. I believe the shareholders should have a right to see your proposal.
Gordon, I have been a shareholder since July of 2007. I invested in the company knowing that this product can save lives, can be used in every mode of transportation, and can make investors very wealthy. I was never a day trader looking for a flip of 10-15 cents. I am a father of 5, living in the beautiful state of Vermont, working for a ski resort. I still believe this can be a life changer for my family as well as for my father, who has put a large portion of his retirement fund into this product. I must look after my family and my dad's interests.
We both voted for the removal of Raphael. We both voted for the current board. I sent you an email in August of 2009 urging you to vote for the removal proposal and you did. We both had the same interest. We managed to get through step one. Let's see if we can work on getting to step two, which brings the CRAM to the market, protects the interest of all shareholders, and is done in a transparent way (shareholder approval) to benefit everyone.
I have told the current board numerous times that I would be willing to host a shareholder meeting at my place of work. We are just two hours from Montreal. We could present your plan, vote in or out the current officers of the company, (ECT Recovery Board was just a temporary placement) and move forward to bringing the CRAM to the worldwide marketplace.
******************************************************************
October 6th, 2010
(email to Bain & Belangers' lawyer)
Christopher,
I appreciate your willingness to meet with me in St. Jean Sur Richelieu last night. Initial contact is a good start. I do hope all of this will work out for everyone to benefit. Indeed, even for my youngest daughter, pictured with the CRAM. However, from what I understood from our conversation, your client will continue to try to bankrupt the company, attempt to take IP, liquidate the shareholders, & start over in a new company. I can say our team will overwhelmingly OPPOSE this action.
Our initial contact with Alphonse & Gordon was to reach out and understand why the action taking place on October 20 was initiated. This action now appears not to be in the best interests of all shareholders.
I am in sales. I am persistent. I am an optimist. I am father of five. Our alliance is unified. This action taking place on October 20th, in no way, benefits the US shareholders or any shareholders, including Gordon and Alphonse. We did not vote to destroy shareholders, we voted to protect shareholders. We voted to bring the company under a competent management team and market the CRAM to the worldwide audience. We are here to protect the IP, which belongs to a US company, incorporated in Delaware. We will not sit idly by, as our investment is jeopardize in Quebec courts. We have funded this project from the beginning of ECT in 2007. Many of our shareholders purchased shares in the .50-.70 cent range. In fact, we have a member who has put 1 million dollars in the company, through family members and retirement funds.
There is an alternative to the courts. I have outlined them here again.
Set clear deadlines
Cease all court actions
Come back to the bargaining table with the ECT recovery team
Call a shareholder meeting
Present your plan at a shareholder meeting. (must benefit all shareholders)
Vote on the plan and board members
ECT recovery team to start acting like a real company. (PR update shareholders)
Possible cash call
We need to commercialize this product, where it is a win-win for everyone. We need a fresh start. We need to move this out of the courts, and put the CRAM on the assembly line. I am asking once again for an alternative to what you have initiated. There is a better way, than in Longueil on October 20th. Let’s look at an alternative plan, which would cost less than your lawyers and court fees.
I am asking in good faith to cease the proceedings scheduled for October 20.
******************************************************************
Here we are in 2011. I am not even sure what actually happened to the BK action in Quebec. The stock trades, we have a shell. Who has the tech now? How much was it worth? Did the Trustee take all the money? Did Mario get his salary? Did Caroni get anything out of this? Guy, Guy, Guy & Gib did they get anything?
WAS IT REALLY WORTH IT GORDON?
I really wonder if Bain & company think they did the right thing. Was this all worth it? Do they have a conscience? I mean, Are you proud of bringing the company to its' knees? Are you proud that you succeeded in your court case to BK the company? Are you proud that investors lost everything? Should we have gotten together with shareholders & worked this out?
II Timothy 6:9-10 states:
Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
I believe this verse sums up very much, those actions of these "businessmen" in Quebec.
I am convinced we will see this CRAM technology in every mode of tranportation worldwide. It is a shame that people destoyed hope & opportunity for shareholders who helped fund this life saving technology.
Somebody will bring this to the market. Somebody with values and principles.
Maybe just maybe, you can look somebody in the eye, shake their hand, & say I trust you, I have your back, you have mine. Now let's get it done.
