Fortfarande faschinerad över att WRE steg i kjölvattnet av en VG-dokumentär som faktiskt bara beskrev hur fastlåst situationen är… Han är inte helt populär nu Mr Wiik. Det värsta är att han faktiskt seriöst trodde han kunde få huvudrollen i något som han själv kallade för storsatsning -helt hopplöst
2 Likes
CEO TASMIN LUCIA-KHAN FILES ANTI-SLAPP MOTION AGAINST GUNNAR RYAN WIIK
http://www.newsweb.no/newsweb/search.do?messageId=435590
4 Likes
Nå begynner det å bli mye og følge med på hehe
1 Like
1 Like
1 Like
ja dette blir spennende, nå må wiik ,slik jeg har forstått det fremlegge bevis for at han har en sak, skulle likt å lest søksmålet
synes jeg begynner å høre gitaren spille…
stakkars,-synes hun ser litt rund ut,det må nok være litt av en påkjenning dette de går igjennom nå. 
Dear shareholder,
Reference is made to the Shareholder Update email from WR Entertainment ASA (the “Company”) dated 12 May 2017, where it was stated that former employee Gunnar Ryan Wiik had filed a complaint against the Company’s CEO, Tasmin Lucia-Khan in which Wiik alleges Lucia-Khan defamed him, trespassed on his personal property, invaded his privacy, and defrauded him. Lucia-Khan said that the claims were baseless and had no merit.
On September 27, 2017, the CEO Lucia-Khan filed an anti-SLAPP motion against Gunnar Ryan Wiik with the Superior Court for the State of California in the County of Los Angeles. A SLAPP is a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation – a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defence until they abandon their criticism or opposition.” Section 425.16 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, commonly known as the “anti-SLAPP” statute, was enacted to shield parties from such meritless lawsuits, in which the complaint arises from protected activity in furtherance of the rights to free speech and the rights to petition the courts.
The Company’s CEO is filing an anti-SLAPP motion as both the Company and the CEO are of the belief that Wiik’s lawsuit against her is both malicious and frivolous, and was designed to intimidate and humiliate the CEO, – and impede the fraud investigation against Wiik.
The anti-SLAPP motion was filed specifically as to Wiik’s defamation claims, which generally accuse the CEO of defaming Wiik by discussing allegations of misconduct, shareholder fraud, corporate fraud, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty with other WR Inc. employees, the Company’s board members, and shareholders. The CEO is requesting the Court to strike the defamation claims, as they improperly seek to hold Lucia-Khan liable for statements she made in connection with WR Inc.’s prelitigation investigation leading to the June 2017 lawsuit filed against Wiik, and relate directly to the claims WR Inc. ultimately brought against Wiik. Lucia-Khan asserts that her conduct in conducting the prelitigation investigation was protected from suit as a matter of law, and is requesting the Court award her fees and costs incurred in litigating this motion.
Referencing the stock release from WR ASA dated June 20, 2017, the extensive fraud investigation which started in November 2016 concluded with WR Inc. filing a lawsuit against Gunnar Ryan Wiik in the Superior Court for the State of California in the County of Los Angeles on June 19, 2017. WR Inc. alleges in that lawsuit that Wiik abused his position of trust to fraudulently take almost 19 million shares that belonged to WR Inc. for his personal benefit, as well as to fraudulently claim hundreds of thousands of dollars from WR Inc. that he was not owed.
Se fra ca 9 minutter:
1 Like
Spent på hva som skjer med Gunnar Wiik når bobla sprekker og han innser realitetene i verden.
NRK er så morsomt at jeg glemte å le…
1 Like
Enig med Tore her, lag film om WRE med Brad Pitt i hovedrollen! 
Hvis man blar litt opp i denne tråden så har vi vært innpå dette tidligere : )
Her er litt fra Anti-slap søksmålet. Dette er dialogen i styremøtene som det ble gjort lydopptak av.
I tingretten sier Cardwell at han fortsatt mener en rekapitalisering er riktig når man skal hente inn penger men i dette tilfellet kom han på etter å ha gått gjennom saken at det beste for selskapet var at aksjene ble reallokert. Her ble cardwell skikkelig grillet av WR sin advokat som presset på for å få vite hvilke dokumenter/eposter som gjorde at han ombestemte seg. Dette klarte han ikke å svare på. Han skrev en statement i Juli 2017 hvor han hevder at Wiik skulle ha aksjene.
Det er ikke rart han fikk betegnelsen lite troverdig i kjennelsen fra Oslo Tingrett.
WR Inc. November 20, 2016 Board Conference Call – Partial Transcript
In attendance: Tasmin Lucia-Khan, Frode Foss, Gunnar Ryan Wiik, James Cardwell.
Time Speaker Text
29:22 Cardwell I don’t recall signing anything, but I do recall a discussion where I agreed
that if the only way to raise money was a recapitalization, then I would
tender back some of my stock to the company. But I would never have
agreed to a reallocation, because that makes no sense, it doesn’t make the
company any more attractive to stock holders based on a mere
reallocation. What I thought I was doing was making the company more
attractive by giving my stock back to the company which would make it
attractive and we could’ve get some cash by selling off that treasury
stock. That was my understanding of the transaction, which I think is
consistent with the paperwork I probably signed but don’t remember
signing.
. . .
50:05 Wiik Who… who is harmed here? No one… no… but who… who… who has
been harmed here?
50:11 Cardwell The insider stockholders who gave up their stock, with the belief it was
going to the company.
50:16 Wiik The management?
50:18 Cardwell Yes
. . .
1:43:19 Cardwell Shouldn’t there have been a disclosure Ryan?
1:43:22 Wiik Between who?
1:43:24 Cardwell Well… it looks to me as though, you had done a transaction, a personal
transaction which benefitted you, but you’d asked stock holders to give
up stock to benefit the company. But that stock had been used in a
transaction which has nothing to do with the company. It was one
between you and 4 stockholders, which is a clear conflict of interest and
should’ve been disclosed.
1:43:58 Wiik But this was completely transparent. This is not… this is not a… a new
discovery, this has been… this has been completely open and transparent
the whole time. We’ve sat and… and looked at all the…
1:44:09 Cardwell I had no knowledge. I had no knowledge of the transaction whereby you
would be personally selling stock to the 4 stockholders. I had no
32
knowledge of that, that was never… in my opinion it was never
disclosed, we can go back and look at minutes.
1:44:26 Wiik Well we’ll … we’ll have to… go back, because it’s… it’s… I mean…
the… eh… the whole year we were working on this structure completely
openly with… with… th… the people… everyone involved… there
wa… there was… I mean this is not a…
1:44:41 Cardwell I had no idea. I had no idea that there was a transaction in place for you
personally to sell stock to the 4 eh 4… 4 existing stockholders. And the
question I would ask is, if that was the case, why didn’t we sell them that
stock from the company, and the company would’ve got the proceeds tax
free, and we would not have had a liquidity crisis. Which is what I
would have said had I known that that transaction was in place or was
pending.
. . .
2:10:10 Cardwell So, I could look at this if I was cold hearted and say, you persuaded
stock holders to give back money to the company, which actually went
to you, which you sold on your own account, and basically kept that
money for yourself, loaned some of it to the company which the
company still owes you. So you basically benefitted $650,000 or
$827,000, whichever number we take, from persuading the company to
take back stock for a recapitalization which could’ve been done directly
between the company and the 4 Norwegian investors. Am I missing
something?
2:11:04 Wiik Is that the… is that the…
2:11:12 Wiik Eh… go on
2:11:14 Cardwell (inaudible) from my own personal point of view, that I gave up 75% of
my stock because I thought the company was in trouble, and it wasn’t.
We could’ve done that stock transaction directly with the 4 Norwegians,
or you could’ve done it yourself, and made the loan immediately to the
company. But there was no disclosure. Am I missing something Ryan?
4 Likes
Ser rødt etter cowboy-krangel
WR Entertainment har filmrettighetene til bøkene, og til rettighetene til e-bøkene om Morgan Kane, men har det siste året vært preget av beskyldninger, aksjonæropprør og søksmål.
Oppdateringen ga ikke de store utslagene i går, men fredag stuper aksjen rett til bunns. Aksjen endte til slutt som dagens soleklare taper etter en nedgang på 16,22 prosent til 31 øre.
I en oppdatering sendt ut fra selskapet torsdag kaller direktør Tasmin Lucia-Khan i WR Entertainment søksmålet fra Ryan Wiik for useriøst og ondsinnet, og ber samtidig retten i California avvise søksmålet fra gründeren.
- Både konsernsjefen og selskapet mener Wiiks søksmål mot henne både er ondsinnet og grunnløst, og at det var designet for å skremme og ydmyke konsernsjefen, samt hindre svindeletterforskningen mot Wiik, skrev selskapet i en uttalse.
Gründer Ryan Wiik og tidligere styreleder Jim Cardwell saksøkte tidligere i år Lucia-Khan personlig for bedrageri.
Wiik på sin side er saksøkt for å ha tilegnet seg 18 millioner aksjer i selskapet på ulovlig vis. Disse aksjene er nå fryst til domstolen i California har avgjort søksmålet mot Wiik.
Kilde: http://www.hegnar.no/Nyheter/Boers-finans/2017/09/Cowboyaksje-rett-til-bunns-nykommer-skjoet-fart
1 Like
1 Like
