We have been contacted by former investors of FCC and DCF and have been asked questions regarding the Settlement that was presented to the Staff Litigators. They want to know why the Settlement Offer we talk about earlier in this blog was not accepted by the BCSC – and why Staff insisted that the only way they would allow a Settlement to occur was IF we agreed to ALL the allegations in the Notice of Hearing, issued on June 14, 2013….and then agreed to pay nearly $6 million in fines and restitution. The lawyer who made these statements was C. Paige Leggat – a simple $100,000 a year lawyer who resigned after we alleged they manipulated the main document in the hearing.
To all of you that have made contact with us – please call or email the Executive Director of the BCSC at the number/email located below and ask them these 5 questions:
It is time these people answer why the investors are not currently receiving money from the development of the Deercrest Townhomes. You are entitled to answers from these people! They are public servants!
Deercrest Unit in 2016
Again, we have reached out to the Chair of the BCSC (alleging wrong doing of her Staff) and she will not respond!
Neglecting her JOB is something we hope is remembered the next time her $500,000 per year salary is renewed by the BC government! Ignoring emails questioning her Staff has been going on for months. What kind of a boss does not (at least) defend her Staff? She has literally left them out to dry! It appears Ms Leong only cares about her own agenda down on Georgia Street. Shame on her!
You can say what you want about me but at least I would have defended my Staff against allegations of wrong-doing (if I truly believed they were false allegations).
We feel it is time she comes out of the little hole she is hiding in and deal with the many questions she is facing regarding the actions of her Staff!
BCSC’S CHAIR BRENDA LEONG
Source: Chen Zhiqiang
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Panel Chair instructed both parties to complete Written Submission on Liability. These documents argued the points brought up during the hearing and gave the parties the ability to prove (or disprove) the allegations brought forward in the Notice of Hearing.
One of the key documents involved in the hearing was the Offering Memorandum(s) (“OM’s”) used by the Respondents to raise capital. For those that invested with the Respondents, you will remember this document as one you were given at the time you invested. The BCSC (and other securities jurisdictions) allow an OM Exemption when raising capital in the securities market.
On May 16, 2014, the Respondents received the Executive Directors Submissions on Liability and began reviewing the points brought forward by Staff. We read them from cover to cover a couple of different times and soon noticed something very particular….
Unfortunately, at paragraph #10 of their submissions, Staff resorted to physically changing the appearance of the document. We feel they did this to suite their theory (and main allegation) that the Respondents did not forward the MAJORITY of the funds to the Developer. This was the big $5.45 million fraud allegation that was ultimately dismissed by the Panel. Let’s take a look at paragraph #10 as it appears in their submissions….
And now, for those of you that don’t have the FCC or DCF Offering Memorandums in front of you, this is how the document looked – keep in mind this document was relied upon at all times to raise capital for the projects, and Staff were suppose to have the onus of proving the case as alleged in the Notice of Hearing:
Continue reading DID BCSC STAFF LAWYERS C. PAIGE LEGGAT AND OLUBODE FAGBAMIYE MANIPULATE EVIDENCE?