(June 14, 2022) The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Honourable E.M. Morgan, J., granted the investors motion to direct the register of the court to note Wayland Group Corp. (“WAYL”) in default pursuant to Rule 19.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The investors’ causes of action are two-fold: (a) relating to WAYL’s securities being purchased in the 2018 private and public offerings; and (b) relating to WAYL’s securities being traded in the secondary markets of the Canadian and Frankfurt stock exchanges as well as the over-the-counter market in the United States.
On September 9, 2019, the Ontario Superior Court granted an investor’s request to issue the statement of claim against WAYL and Benjamin A. Ward, its former chief executive officer. On that same date, WAYL’s then chief executive officer and chief financial officer were served with the statement of claim, Rules 16.03(c) and 16.08. Subsequently, on September 12, 2019, WAYL’s external lawyers accepted the statement of claim, on WAYL’s behalf. Prior to serving a notice of intent to defend, Rule 18.02, WAYL’s same external lawyers filed an application with the court for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). The court granted a Stay of Litigation against WAYL until mid-July 2020, and a Stay of Litigation protecting WAYL’s former directors and officers until February 28, 2022.
The investors are preparing an amended statement of claim to clarify the allegations of the constituent elements of each of the causes of action, proceed to obtain discovery from third-parties, and, ultimately, seek an order for summary judgment and damages on the causes of action relating to the 2018 securities offerings and trading of WAYL’s securities listed on the Canadian and Frankfurt stock exchanges as well as the over-the-counter market in the United States for the period between November 28, 2018 and April 23, 2019.
Investors and third-parties, such as former contractors and vendors of WAYL, are encouraged to contact us if you have information about the conduct of WAYL’s former directors and officers, e.g., sending emails or other communications that touted WAYL’s investment quality.