A US Federal Court decision strikes a mortal blow to Cannabis Science. by Steve Kubby
(libertarian)
Sunday, June 13, 2010
What would happen if you went back in time and killed yourself? Would you still be alive? Strangely enough, we are about to find out with Cannabis Science, (CBIS.OB).
A US Federal judge struck a mortal blow to CBIS on June 10, 2010, by voiding the very documents used to create the company and then declaring those documents never existed.
In an agreed judgment issued June 7, 2010 by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, Judge Richard A. Schell ruled that stock certificates allegedly issued for the purchase of Cannex Therapeutics assets and intellectual property by Cannabis Science, Inc. were never delivered and so the judge ordered the deal and those stock certificates canceled.
Judge Schell further decreed:
"The Purchase Agreement and Control Shareholder Agreements are rescinded and cancelled, nunc pro tunc to the dates of execution, for any and all purposes."
The term, "nunc pro tunc", means that not only is the Control Shareholder's Agreement and Purchase Agreement void, neither document ever existed.
That's right, the Federal Court of Texas, has ruled that, "for any and all purposes," the Control Shareholder's Agreement and Purchase Agreement never existed. Now, as a result of that Federal Court decision, ownership of CBIS, which is really Gulf Onshore renamed, reverts back to the owner of Gulf Onshore.
Meanwhile, CBIS, which has lost 74% of its value this year, will continue to trade, even though it is now only a ghost. One guess is that the new owner of CBIS will have trading halted and take back his shell.
CBIS may claim the judgement is flawed, that it is the wrong jurisdiction, that the company is based in Colorado, or that they should have been a party to the federal lawsuit, but none of these arguments are valid. Gulf Onshore is a Texas company and the deal was signed and notarized in Texas, with Cannex Therapeutics as the only other party, so this decision by the Texas Federal Court is rock solid. Besides, this decision is "nunc pro tunc", so anyone who wants to sue or file an appeal, will be arguing over something that, according to Texas Federal Court, never happened.
Cannabis Science repeatedly issued press releases and made public statements that they owned the rights to my revolutionary cannabis delivery system, thereby creating a serious roadblock for me to raise any funds. The question of lozenge ownership remained an overwhelming objection from investors that we were never able to overcome. In fact, there were several qualified investors who were prepared to make six figure investments with us, but decided to go with Cannabis Science instead, primarily because of the public statements and private claims made by CBIS that they owned the rights.
I'm proud of the way we dealt with the Cannabis Science issue, because it shows our management team is able to weather any storm and still get the job done. Furthermore, by our actions, our team has proven its commitment to acting in an honest and responsible manner. After all, it was our team that uncovered what we believed was unethical and illegal actions within our own company and it was our team that refused to cover up or participate in those actions.
At this point, the big question is what happens to Cannabis Science, now that a federal judge has gone back in time and erased it? Will it manage to somehow survive or go Up in Smoke?
For more information about Cannabis Science, don't miss this eye-opening commentary by Thomas Knapp.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 9
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Steve Kubby only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Steve Kubby is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: sarasile
Date: June 15, 2010 03:40:05 PM
[Latin, Now for then.] When courts take some action nunc pro tunc, that action has retroactive legal effect, as though it had been performed at a particular, earlier date.
The most common use of nunc pro tunc is to correct past clerical errors, or omissions made by the court, that may hinder the efficient operation of the legal system. For example, if the written record of a trial court's judgment failed to correctly recite the judgment as the court rendered it, the court has the inherent power to change the record at a later date to reflect what happened at trial. The decision, as corrected, would be given legal force from the time of the initial decision so that neither party is prejudiced, or harmed, by the error. The purpose of nunc pro tunc is to correct errors or omissions to achieve the results intended by the court at the earlier time.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
nunc pro tunc (nuhnk proh tuhnk): adj. Latin for "now for then" this refers to changing back to an earlier date of an order, judgment, or filing of a document. Such a retroactive re-dating requires a court order which can be obtained by a showing that the earlier date would have been legal, and there was error, accidental omission, or neglect which has caused a problem or inconvenience which can be cured. Often the judge will grant the nunc pro tunc order ex parte (with only the applicant appearing and without notice). Examples: a court clerk fails to file an answer when he/she received it, and a nunc pro tunc date of filing is needed to meet the legal deadline (statute of limitations); a final divorce judgment is misdirected and, therefore, not signed and dated until the day after the re-marriage of one of the parties---the nunc pro tunc order will prevent the appearance or actuality of a bigamous marriage.
