Episode # 11: Judge Campbell’s Unfortunate Confusion Over “Claimatrix”
This one’s MUCH shorter than the last!
Episode #11: Judge Campbell’s Unfortunate Confusion Over “Claimatrix”
In the last very long and complicated episode, it was explained how CMT was in the process of becoming “FMT” by acquiring a “shell company” (RevTech) to become listed on the stock exchange.
What’s important to understand with all this corporate stuff is that CMT had 100%-ownership in FMT, and was soon to move all its assets into FMT to transition from being a company registered in the United States to being a Canadian company residing in PEI with a Board of Directors that included local PEI residents.
This is what the PEI government had requested from CMT, it made good sense, and CMT was actively engaged in bringing it about as early as the fall of 2010.
I also want you to recall how Wes Sheridan stood in the Legislative Assembly and pronounced that CMT had absolutely no connection to Simplex, and Simplex was only doing business with the Mi’Kmaq confederacy, not the PEI Government.
Now recall that “Amended” deal with the PEI Government that Brad Mix told Philip Walsh (CEO of Simplex) that the PEI government had endorsed. That was a deal Wes Sheridan gave the go-ahead for to have the “Financial Transaction Hub” acquire additional assets (Sterci).
What Philip Walsh told Mix clarifies that it was CMT/FMT (not Simplex) that would be the “local company” for the entire project and that “Simplex and FMT have the right of first refusal for the disposal of Sterci’s 51% stake.” Why did he say this? Because he knew that FMT was CMT, and CMT had a major shareholder stake in Simplex.
Simplex and CMT may have been two separate corporate entities, but with respect to the plan to establish a financial transaction platform in PEI – although Simplex was a core technology partner with CMT, and essential for CMT to be able to deliver the financial transaction platform – the PEI Government deal was always with CMT/FMT (not Simplex), which is why the MOU was also signed with FMT (not Simplex).
So where does “Claimatrix” fit into the picture?
What Judge Campbell said about Claimatrix
I also mentioned in the last episode that Paul Maines would respond to inquiries by Paul Jenkins and others requesting company overviews or information describing the nature of the financial transactions “hub” that CMT/FMT would be delivering in PEI. The following closing paragraph in one of those “overview” documents mentions Claimatrix:
This was a document that Jeff Trainor had acquired.
The mention of “Claimatrix” by Campbell appears incidental to his main concern, Dowling’s sworn testimony about the investment Jeff Trainor made in CMT (Target-Co). Campbell’s one mention of Claimatrix in his 172 page ruling was in conjunction with this paragraph about Jeff Trainor:
Paragraph 486: “Dowling also described the contents of an email and attachments originally sent by Maines to Jeff Trainor which included the same investment information Hashmi had received from Maines. The information included a 2011 slide presentation referring to CMT as the company which “delivers” Claimatrix (reference to another tech company and its services) in the UK. Dowling’s affidavit does not state that Maines solicited the Trainors to invest. However, there is no denial an investment was made.
With all due respect to Judge Campbell, “Dowling’s Affidavit does indeed state that Maines solicited the Trainors to invest.” In paragraph 5(d) Dowling states:
“Upon transferring her investment account, Ms. Trainor informed Mr. Curran that, on the recommendation of Mr. MacEachern, she and her husband Jeff Trainor had, during 2011, made a $30,000 investment after having been solicited to do so by Mr. Maines.”
Judge Campbell obtained his information about “Claimatrix” from a paragraph in Dowling’s 2013 Securities Commission Affidavit, even copying the quotation marks around the word “delivers”:
However, it appears Campbell “misread” what Dowling said, at least to some degree. Dowling only said that CMT “delivers” Claimatrix in the UK, nothing about Claimatrix being a company in the UK. Campbell obviously didn’t review the actual 2010 slide presentation regarding, as Dowling put it: “Simplex and Claimatrix making several claims about their operations” – which was a document he had in front of him – or he would have known that Claimatrix was not a UK company.
Campbell likely wouldn’t have mentioned Claimatrix at all if it hadn’t been for the fact that the 2010 slide show on Claimatrix was one of the documents in the package sent to Jeff Trainor. Why would it be there? You’d think it would be worth at least scanning!
Campbell denies Dowling’s false testimony that Maines “solicited” Jeff Trainor, which he most certainly claimed (Episode #4); and that is immediately followed by an admission that he thinks Claimatrix is a company in the UK, revealing that Campbell knows absolutely nothing about a critically-important part of the story and case.
Claimatrix is a “collaborative claims platform” that can integrate with Simplex’s financial transaction platform to offer the following services to customers. Specifically, Claimatrix is able to:
- Automate in real-time the numerous types of claims normally communicated via letter, email, faxes and telephones;
- Produce enterprise wide counterparty payables/receivables exposures; and,
- Consolidate claims control across business entities and offer claims aggregation and net settlement opportunities.
Claimatrix is provided as a Secure Web-based SaaS service which requires no software installation and comes with data collection templates, process and working practices standards for manual and automated input.
Claimatrix was developed by a company in the UK, but has been 100%-owned by CMT/FMT since 2010. From the very outset, CMT and its ownership of Claimatrix has been a core value component with the Financial Services Platform “hub” project with the PEI government.
Part of the reason Claimatrix is so valuable was its global recognition as having ISITC Certification, European Best Practice Guidelines recognized and accepted worldwide:
“The claimatrix collaborative claims platform was recently presented to the ISITC Europe leadership team and was shown to conform to the Industry Standardization for Institution Trade Communications Committee (ISITC) Europe best practice guidelines for Claims management.” [ See: “Claimatrix conforms to ISITC Europe “Claims – best practice guidelines“].
Claimatrix was also noted as a major asset in the CMT/Target-Co fundraise in the plan to establish a local company (FMT) with a stock listing, and then have CMT transition into becoming FMT.
When Garth Jenkins first introduced Paul Maines to his cousin Paul Jenkins, and then Paul Jenkins introduced Paul Maines to numerous government people – including Wes Sheridan and the members of the secretive e-gaming committee. CMT/Simplex was then “recruited” to PEI to establish a local company to deliver the Financial Transaction Platform “Hub”,
Garth Jenkins was initially involved with setting up the investment and CMT corporate transition strategy. In an email with Raymond James (managing the “targetCo” investment plan to raise money for CMT) what the corporate “ownership” breakdown would look like after all the corporate transactions were all complete was presented:
What’s key here is the last sentence: “So at the close of the transaction TargetCo will own 48.5% of Simplex and 100% of Claimatrix.”
Remember, “Target-Co” intended to purchase “RevTech” (a stock-listed “shell company” with no other assets, although having a “listing” is incredibly valuable because it saves $1/2 million or so getting on to the stock market through the regular IPO process which I know nothing about other than it’s very expensive). Once that happened, “RevTech” would become FMT, and CMT would then become FMT (layman’s version).
If Judge Campbell had understood what Claimatrix really was, he would have also understood how CMT/FMT was the company behind the entire “Financial Transaction Hub” initiative, and that initiative most definitely included “e-gaming,” because Wes Sheridan and Chris LeClair’s main interest was to use that “hub” for e-gaming.
Wes understood e-gaming and the financial transactions platform initiatives to be essentially “one project.” Read what Neil Stewart wrote to Brad Mix and Michael Mayne on June 3, 2011:
“Wes Sheridan is heading this way with the gaming…..based on my last discussion with him they are viewing gaming and financial services as one thing. Minister Sheridan had checked with me when he heard we were in discussion with Virgin Gaming.”
And that the two were essentially the same thing was also confirmed by the Auditor General:
Section 6.15: “In May 2011, the former Chief of Staff (LeClair) and these individuals presented the opportunity of marrying the two projects (E-gaming and the financial services platform) to the E-gaming working group. Simplex, CMT’s Technology Partner, was then engaged by local law firm to prepare a report on how the platform would work for E-gaming and the technical requirements it would need to operate.”
Yet Judge Campbell felt justified in proclaiming:
In just one paragraph – the one cited above (# 486) there are the following two significant errors: (1) He said Dowling didn’t swear that Maines solicited Trainor – he did; and (2) Claimatrix is a UK company – it isn’t.
If Campbell had understood what Claimatrix is as a CMT/FMT asset with a central place in the financial transaction platform initiative married to e-gaming, then he would not likely have drawn such a patently ridiculous conclusion that neither CMT nor 764 (FMT) had anything to do with the “…so-called e-gaming project.”
Campbell relied on Dowling’s Affidavit and references it frequently throughout his ruling. However, the Affidavit is chalked-full of hearsay; or worse still, false claims attributed to people he interviewed that had to be corrected in sworn Affidavits from those people.
Had Campbell simply read the Exhibits that accompanied Dowling’s Affidavit he would have seen the following in an official News Release from Europe:
Two MAJOR errors in one paragraph, actually, in a consecutive string of just 26 words (what’s highlighted in red above).
There are 686 paragraphs in Campbell’s ruling.
Do the math.