XML 24 R12.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.24.1.1.u2
NOTES RECEIVABLE
3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2024
NOTES RECEIVABLE  
NOTES RECEIVABLE

NOTE 6 – NOTES RECEIVABLE

 

The William Noyes Webster Foundation, Inc.

 

The Foundation, a non-profit Massachusetts corporation, has received a provisional registration from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to own and operate a medical marijuana cultivation facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts, and a medical marijuana dispensary in Dennis, Massachusetts. Jane W. Heatley (“Heatley”) is the founder and a member of the board of directors of the Foundation.

Teaming Agreement – The Company believes it is highly likely that the board of directors of the Foundation will only approve contracts that have been negotiated and approved by Heatley. Consequently, on July 8, 2014, the Company entered into a Teaming Agreement (the “Teaming Agreement”) with Heatley, in which, among other things: (1) the Company and Heatley agreed to use their respective best efforts, working exclusively together as a team, and not as a partnership or other entity, in order to consummate transactions, agreements, contracts or other arrangements pursuant to which the Company will provide capital and expertise to the Foundation; and (2) Heatley agreed that Heatley shall not, and shall not permit the Foundation to, discuss or negotiate for debt or equity financing, or consulting services or other expertise, from any third party. The Company claims that Heatley violated the Teaming Agreement by discussing and negotiating for debt or equity financing, or consulting services or other expertise, from at least one third party. Heatley claims that the Company violated the Teaming Agreement alleging that the Company failed to lend funds to the Foundation in accordance with the Teaming Agreement. The Company believes Heatley’s claim to be baseless. No assurances whatsoever can be made that Heatley will comply with the terms of the Teaming Agreement, nor that the Company will be able to adequately enforce the terms of the Teaming Agreement if it is ever the subject of litigation.

 

Promissory Note – On July 14, 2014, the Foundation signed and delivered to the Company a Secured Promissory Note (the “Note”) which is in the stated loan amount of $1,500,000, and is secured by a Security Agreement of even date therewith (the “Security Agreement”). The Note provides that the $1,500,000 loan may be advanced in one or more installments as the Foundation and the Company may mutually agree upon. The Foundation and the Company mutually agreed that the first installment of this loan would be $602,500. Pursuant to instructions from the Foundation, on July 14, 2014, the Company paid $2,500 owed by the Foundation to one of its consultants, and the Company advanced $600,000 directly to the Foundation. The amount and timing of subsequent loan installments under the Note, which could have totaled $897,500, had not yet been mutually agreed upon between the Foundation and the Company as of the date of the Note.

 

Between April and July 2015, the Company loaned an additional $135,350 to the Foundation, evidenced by the Note and secured by the Security Agreement. Following such additional loans, the principal of the loan from the Company to the Foundation, evidenced by the Note and secured by the Security Agreement, is now $737,850. The principal balance outstanding under the Note bore interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum, compounded monthly. It was contemplated that the first payment of accrued interest by the Foundation under the Note would be made as soon after the Foundation commences operations of the Plymouth Cultivation Facility and the Dennis Dispensary as the Foundation’s cash flows shall reasonably permit, but in any event no later than one year after the Foundation commences operations. The principal of the Note would be payable in eight consecutive equal quarterly installments, commencing on the last day of the calendar quarter in which the Foundation commences operations. Principal on the Note and related accrued interest would be considered past due if the aforementioned payments were not received by their due dates.

 

Uncollectable Note and Interest Receivable – The Company assessed the collectability of the Note based on the adequacy of the Foundation’s collateral and the Foundation’s capability of repaying the Note according to its terms. Based on this assessment, on September 1, 2015, the Company concluded that the Note and interest receivable would not be collectible. As such, the Company wrote off the Note totaling $737,850 and interest receivable totaling $97,427 as bad debt expense on September 1, 2015.