Solutionnet was suing me in December of 2004:
On December 4, 2000, the Company brought an action entitled SolutionNet International, Inc. v. Garrett Krause, FutureVest Corporation, Omnimark, Ltd., Rancho La Playa Investment Ltd., Wilmington Partners XI LLC, Wilmington Rexford, Inc., Web Capital Ventures, Inc. and WorldVest Holding Corporation in the Superior Court of the State of California. On March 29, 2001, the Court dismissed FutureVest Corporation, Omnimark, Ltd., Rancho La Playa Investment Ltd. and WorldVest Holding Corporation for lack of jurisdiction. In this litigation, the Company has alleged that, among other things, Krause breached fiduciary duties to the Company by issuing 920,000 Company shares and 1,730,000 Company shares to Web Capital (formerly Sara Hallitex) and by issuing 1,500,000 shares of stock to five companies. At the time of the exchange agreement (See "Item 1: Description of Business - Company History"), Mr. Krause was an officer and director of SolutionNet and the President of Web Capital. (He was removed as an officer and director of SolutionNet in August 2000.) Prior to the exchange agreement, Densmore had entered into an agreement with Web Capital pursuant to which, among other things, (1) Web Capital was to receive 920,000 restricted shares of SolutionNet common stock for providing certain services and (2) Web Capital was to receive 1,730,000 restricted shares of SolutionNet common stock in connection with arranging the placement of 1,000,000 shares of the Company's common stock at $2.00 per share. Instead, the Company has alleged that Web Capital did not provide the requisite services and placed 1,500,000 shares at $0.66 per share. The Company is seeking the return of the 920,000 and the 1,730,000 shares and compensation from Web Capital and Garrett Krause for selling more shares for a lower price than was agreed to.
Garrett Krause, Web Capital and certain of the defendants have filed an answer denying their liability, and Garrett Krause and Web Capital have filed a cross-complaint for breach of contract and misrepresentation and are seeking damages in an amount to be determined and punitive damages. The Company believes such cross-complaint is without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.
