InvestorsHub Logo

nodummy

10/12/11 12:11 AM

#9560 RE: cookstove12 #9533

The Centacom/Mineseeker signed agreement.

I'm not taking sides in the debate. Just trying to uncover information and facts.

I know that on August 30, 2011 a signed agreement was drafted between Centacom, Mineseeker, NHSH, and the Note holders. The agreement which was signed by all parties mentioned required Mineseeker to pay Centacom $50,000 in five installments of $10,000 each. Mineseeker would get 442,500,000 of the 450,000,000 shares held by Centacom. James Owens would keep 7,500,000 of those shares. All the Convertible Promissory Notes would be transferred to Mineseeker.

Parts of this agreement were even published on the Mineseeker website, but have since been removed.

The first payment of $10,000 was supposed to come within seven days of the signing of the agreement. $800 of that initial first payment was paid upfront by Mineseeker at the time of the signing of the agreement on August 30, 2011, but the rest of the first payment never came. A seven day extension was granted and the payment still didn't come. A second seven day extension was granted and the payment still didn't come. On October 6, 2011, Centacom drafted a default letter informing Mineseeker that they were in breach of trust.

I don't even pretend to know what logic went into them changing their minds and deciding to renege on the signed agreement and cancel those 450,000,000 shares instead. It appears that NHSH believes that they either have a very strong case that Centacom should never have been given those shares in the first place or enough damaging information against James Owens and/or Centacom that they don't think that James Owens would challenge the breach of contract in court.

The thing that still gets me is that if Centacom was never issued those shares to begin with then one of the debt Note holders, Bill Harvey, would have been a beneficial owner of more than 10% of the outstanding shares preventing his shares from being free trading.


Even though at this point it seems irrelevant I think posting the documents is important so that all shareholders know what has been going on behind the scenes especially if this ends up going to court - though at this point a court battle doesn't seem very likely.



I've inserted screen shots of the documents in this post and supplied links for further access. The default letter follows the signed agreement.


SIGNED AGREEMENT:

https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/nwcxp














DEFAULT LETTER:

https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/hzcKdi