About Envion

Pinned Message @ Telegram

Laurent in Envion-Founders
* Envion Founders Telegram*

Latest info on case against CEO and the founder's fight to recover control of the company.

The Cantonal Court of Zug Switzerland has ruled that envion is to be liquidated. The founders are working to reverse this ruling as the decision was made because of obstruction and lies by Matthias Woestmann. Woestmann prevented auditors from communicating with Trado GmbH and the founders, and lied about the founders’ willingness to provide data to auditors.



* The court in Zug announced liquidation, but there is not an official announcement in the business register
* No deadline to register a claim has been announced
* It is not necessary to pay anyone to file a claim
* A liquidator has not been chosen and no details about a claims process has been announced


* How token holders should file a claim (under which designation)
* What amount of ICO funds will return to token holders
* How funds will be distributed to claimants
* If Woestmann and shareholders will be paid ICO money remaining after refund (the founders are specifically fighting against this outcome)


* Guidance from founders provided by their legal team to assist in filing claims
* Clear communication on how to file a claim
* Plenty of time to file a claim


Envion’s founders have won an injunction against CEO Matthias Woestmann and codefendants Thomas van Aubel, Jutta von Falkenhausen, and Dinnies von der Osten prevent the sale or transfer of company shares and allow any transfer or debit of envion's assets.

Swiss financial authority FINMA has removed Woestmann and his associate Marc Gurov from the board and have begun an investigation. The FINMA investigation is separate from the court ruling.

Founders’ response to FINMA probe: https://envion-founders.org/envion-ag-founders-welcome-investigation-by-swiss-financial-regulator-finma-and-removal-of-ceo-from-board/


• ILLEGAL: Matthias Woestmann’s capital increase and share dilution
• REJECTED: Accusation that founders illegitimately created tokens
• LIABLE: Quadrat Capital and Sycamore GmbH must pay Trado’s legal fees and are liable for damages
• JAIL/FINES: For selling shares or initiating use of investor funds (6 months jail per infringement)




* No spamming!
* No personal attacks! It's not tolerated
* No cocktail napkin math of any kind
* Scroll up and see if there is already an answer you seek

No Information on this channel should be construed as official communication from envion AG. The views expressed here are those of the envion's founding team and Trado GmbH

Have a pleasant stay!

- Envion Founders


Laurent in Envion-Founders
Sure. It's very nice that the liquidator is giving updates and the announcement does provide a bit of clarity on the process over the long term.

What it doesn't do is mention token holders or how exactly they will be included in the process. That's a very complicated topic and it's no suprise that they are still working on it.

The founders' legal opinion for the liquidator includes every type of token holder: ICO credit card, ICO ETH, exchange, non-KYC'ed, etc. Everything. Naturally, we hope they adopt the recommendations of the founders' legal opinion which more or less treats all eligible token holders equally—with only some differentiations in process.

It's helpful that the liquidator mentions that claims which are not fully repaid via asset dispersal will receive a Certificate of Shortfall. That should help ameliorate any potential losses to token holders after the liquidation process is over so that the total amount of their investment will either be repaid in currency or can more easily be written off as a tax loss.

If there are more concrete questions about the announcement I'm glad to hear them and discuss with the founders' legal team.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
Hi Laurent, you wrote here that the founders are trying to reverse the court order. Any chance the liquidation will wait until for that or is it more likely at this point that liquidation will take place? If it does take place, and since MW et al are going…
Hi Emmet. Several questions here, so let me break this apart a bit.

The only way to reverse the liquidation order is to win a criminal case demonstrating the ruling was based on false information provided to the court by Woestmann. This would have to be completed before the end of the liquidation discovery period. The founders are exploring the option with their legal team and concurrently working with the liquidator in the case that it's not possible to win such a case within the necessary timeframe. The liquidation will not wait for such a case to be filed and tried.

Pursuing claims of damages against Woestmann, van Aubel, von Falkenhausen, and von der Osten is something that is already in motion on the part of the founders. Whether or not additional damages can be added remains to be seen. Since the liquidator has not yet made any announcements on how the liquidation claims procedure will affect token holders and shareholders, it's not possible to speculate at the time being.

The founders have indicated they have no interest in profiting from the liquidation and will not accept funds in excess of the break even point for Trado's claims. The mechanics of this are also hard to speculate about until the liquidator gives further clarification on the liquidation process. The statement of intention by the founders is clear and will be elaborated upon as the liquidator determines and communicates the details of the liquidation procedure.
JC --- cryptosaurus
So did I miss anything? I saw some post earlier on my phone about the liquidation but I guess it's gone so was BS...
Konkursamt in Zug officially announce the liquidation on their website:
Information on "envion AG in liquidation bankruptcy
The cantonal court of the canton of Zug has with decision of the 14 November 2018 the envion AG, headquartered in Baar, in accordance with article 731 b paragraph 1 point. 3 of the Swiss Code of obligations (co; SR 220) dissolved and ordered their liquidation under the rules on the bankruptcy. The appeal period has expired now unused and the decision is therefore valid. The bankruptcy Office is responsible for the liquidation of the envion AG Zug.

For the bankruptcy Office train it comes in a first phase now to get an overview of the situation. At the same time, the bankruptcy Office takes up the inventory of the assets belonging to the bankrupt and take the measures necessary to safeguard the assets.

Should you be a creditor or creditors of envion AG in liquidation, we ask you to submit your claim with the claim form "Claim input". The relevant forms, see the following link: https://www.zg.ch/behoerden/volkswirtschaftsdirektion/konkursamt/formulare

Take and creditors who do not live in the Switzerland, we expressly point out that this must refer to a place of service in the Switzerland. Otherwise, the bankruptcy Office applies to this take and creditors as a place of service.

If you have any questions or useful information, we ask you to send it to us by E-Mail to [email protected] .

In addition, we refer you to our publications in the Swiss Official Gazette of Commerce (SOGC; ( www.shab.ch) and in the official journal of the Canton Zug.
Feeling good about liquidation putting ass all out of our misery
Maybe.... There's still some uncertainty about it all. This isn't a guaranteed refund. A lot depends on how the assigned liquidator views our rights (or lack thereof) as token holders.
So Laurent... The court decision for liquidation in the quadrat capital press release is the one the founders are fighting (mentioned in the Founders press release)? Because Woestmann claimed Trado didn't provide ICO data and Trado said, once the GHR lawyers…
Let me try to give you a better understanding: GHR/Finma and court are different proceedings. GHR collects information for Finma so that Finma could decide on their topics. And the court has a case concerning the missing auditor. The court just looks whether there is an auditor or whether there are chances that one is coming. If both is not the case in their view then they decide to liquidate. As Woestmann was lying to them by saying that I would refuse to deliver necessary data they did not see a chance that the company gets the auditor that is needed and decided in the only way they see suitable.
Someone's opinion from another group: The way that the regulator approves the refund is the one that is legal, ie. the money gets back the one who gave the money. If you have paid a token 0.7, you will get back 0.7. If someone got a token and did not give…
At the moment we do not speak of activities of the regulator. The regulator (Finma) did not finish the investigation. What we have on the table is a decision of a swiss court to liquidate because of missing auditors. Liquidation is not a "refund". What the process (simplified) includes is handle all liabilities before the company gets closed. When it comes to identifying all liabilities, it gets pretty complex and different stances are possible. You could also argue that the contract says in the case of liquidation the token holder gets nothing -> no liability there -> most of the money to Aubel/MW. But would that make sense? The good news is that common sense is also applied. In our view the distribution of leftover assets to token holders (in case of liquidation that includes the give-up of the project) is reasonable, fairest and has a very strong chain of reasoning. Like stated before all has to be decide by the liquidator and all could still change with the decision of Finma at the end of their investigation.
Carlos Eduardo
Is this article real? https://cointelegraph.com/news/report-zug-court-shuts-down-swiss-off-grid-mining-firm-envion-ag
This is not real. At least many parts of it are not. Especially to mention that there is no deadline running for a refund yet.

The formal proceeding of a bankruptcy office has not even been started yet. What should happen now is that the banktrupcty office will look on the case, see all documents and talk to the involved people (usually administrative board). There will be no deadline running before a publication is made at https://shab.ch. We are planning a website/email system where we inform you about everything we know that you do not have to go to deep into the topic or have to navigate through shab-website.
I forwarded his article to FINMA asking if he was allowed to report this to investors.
They said I was "not party to information..." and that;
"... Finma is aware of the decision of the Zug Cantonal Court. This is a civil law decision, independent from FINMA's enforcement proceeding... ongoing."


Laurent in Envion-Founders
The companies involved are obviously going to use funds (our money) to try and resolve all these issues as they drag it out in courts fighting each other, not in our interest
The things that should be obvious to you are the things written in this group. I suggest you read what is written here before cluttering this group with indignation.

The founders have taken many measure NOT to incur expenses that might affect token holders. they have specifically taken Woestmann via his company Quadrat Capital and Thomas van Aubel, Jutta von Falkenhausen, and Dinnies von der Osten via their company Sycamore to court rather than envion. This ensures that envion assets are not used to pursue justice for token holders.

Just read. Please read. It’s embarrassing to see how adamant you are about things that are demonstrably false.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
You could actually claim by yourself. That way you will get your part of the money back earlier than those who are waiting for all this criminals to have the things their way
This is not how the liquidation process works and you are ignoring the many statements made here about Trado's relationship to envion and my work for Trado.

Matthias Woestmann, Cyrill Staeger, and Woestmann's cronies are the only persons to have been paid with envion funds after the ICO.

Currently, the liquidator is paid from envion's funds and there is debate as to whether Thomas van Aubel will be paid to represent envion. Lawsuits against envion will literally pay the liquidator and/or Thomas van Aubel—a person who has several times been identified as acting immorally and destructively to damage envion's investors.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
Tnerual S.
Can you elaborate more on the money CS has taken as a bonus? Was it part of investors money?
That’s the only money envion had.

Woestmann had mentioned that Staeger had given himself a bonus in the middle of the night right before resigning at some point a few months back, but the founders never had access to accounts or records to prove it.

FINMA listed the amount in the report. $579k and change.

What Woestmann told us was that Staeger signed a contract with himself at 11pm or something, payable the following day. Then a short time later at ~12:01am he transferred the money so that the contract and transfer had a different date. Looks like there was time to react. Then he resigned the next morning and walked away.

That story is second hand and Woestmann and Staeger had the only records to prove it, so the founders couldn’t do anything about it.

Why Woestmann didn’t pursue the issue is a mystery.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
Luke Rayner
Hi I'm really sorry because I would imagine this has been asked 1 million times. Feel free to point me in the right direction if it has already been mentioned. Did environ spend any of the investors money? If none was spent was this money kept as etherium…
Hi Luke.

The founders were shut out of the company via the illegal capital raise directly after the ICO, so there is not total visibility of all expenses on our side.

We do know some things though. Cyrill Staeger unilaterally gave himself a half-million-dollar bonus the night before he resigned and walked away from the company. Woestmann paid himself a stipend until the court blocked him from personally profitting from the company. He communicated this to some investors and disclosed the amount to be €15,000/month. We are not sure if he paid any other shareholders or board members a stipend.

Thomas van Aubel's law firm has submitted six-figure bills to envion for legal services.

Woestmann also used envion's ICO money to pay for PR services to publish false accusations and discredit the founders. Once the court rulings and FINMA proceedings prevented him from using ICO investor money to pay for his PR campaign, he discontinued those services.

Some of the ICO money should have been used to pay for ICO expenses, but it's unclear if there were any other legitimate uses of ICO money since Woestmann does not appear to have had any intention of pursuing the concept.

There is no evidence that he took any action against Staeger for absconding with a half-million dollars.


Laurent in Envion-Founders
Rashid Syed
Pls get in touch with FINMA and also push for funds info and more protection of it. Need MW to have 0% control of funds asap. Also ask them if they need info of the court rulings.
FINMA has removed Woestmann and Marc Gurov from the board. They can do nothing. They have been replaced with a law firm working for the regulator.

Our legal team reached out to FINMA today.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
Simone PM
Could we have an abstract of what has been explained to be informed as well, please?
It's pretty much what has been made public. This is a good thing. FINMA began an investigation to look into the rights to accept money without a banking license based on the structure and execution of the ICO. The founders do not see any legal exposure on their part.

There are myriad options for FINMA to enforce changes to the structure and execution of the ICO including management changes, penalties, etc. The most drastic action would be liquidation. Liquidation is a complicated and costy process which could mean losses for all parties. The only reason to choose that would be if there were no other remedies or, rather, if all other remedies have been exhausted.

There has been zero indication that Woestmann's false claims against the founders (which I remind you were already rejected by the Berlin court) are under investigation or that anything the founders did is in any way the focus of FINMA's process.

FINMA stays tight-lipped about their investigations. There will be a long period without news updates from them. You can bet that people who are inserting their 'expert' opinions into this matter to fill the empty space either A.) are clueless; or B.) have an agenda.

The way you want it to go or the way you think it will be best for investors, or founders, or anyone else is irrelevant to FINMA.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
How are things looking over there? 😉
They are looking like I will have less to say from now on. FINMA is in contact with Trado and Michael. As such, I cannot comment on proceedings while the investigation is ongoing.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
BEN🌙👣🎩 Afflick
finma stopping follow up courtcase?
To my knowledge, Finma does not have any authority over German courts.


Laurent in Envion-Founders
Have u hear about money laundry? He is a millonaire and a smart guy.. Too many ways to hide it or make it look like its legit..
I'm closing down this conversation. No one at any time has suggested that Woestmann or others were perpetrating an exit scam. It's not helpful to people who are not following the story to confuse them with these thought experiments.

Woestmann wanted to sell the company and walk away with clean money. If you can't understand how that works, then educate yourself. Do not waste everyone's time here discussing the simple crimes you can easily understand becasue you are too lazy to learn about what took place.

Real money is at risk. Have respect for that by sticking to the facts.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
In Cognito
Laurent, its gotten to the point, that this whoole thing feels like a scam. why are the investors, who are trying to germinate this new world of self managed funds, being made victims on such a large scale?
Because Woestmann was never invested in the project like the founders and he doesn't care what happens to it. Van Aubel and his friends have ripped off investors, taxpayers, governments. They don't really care about the project or the supporters.

It's hard not to be cynical in the face of such callus behavior—it's sociopathic—but we are hopeful that our case will be one because we have such irrefutable proof.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
Hey Laurent sorry comments on the official channel but gotta say MW looked dubious from the word go. Doesnt he have a few previous companies that liquidated suspiciously.
Now that we know the van Aubels connection, it's apparent what was happening with his companies was suspicious and likely illegal.

However, prior to that connection, there was not much on paper that connected him to shady dealings.

Germany had a solar energy industry collapse and so it is not unusual that companies in the energy industry went bankrupt.

The difference is that Woestmann MADE MONEY from that period. He lost nothing. He said it was because he was such a good businessman. Instead, we know it's because van Aubels set up structures to profit from failure after accepting many millions in government subsidies.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
He keeps the founded team busy and paralysed.... his actions are more frequent than the speed the team can handle his actions.... hence he is controlling game here.
See what van Aubels did to the managers of Balda/Clere—same thing. Took them to court with false accusations. All charges dropped. But only after they lost their company and investors lost many millions.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
Meanwhile inside the Investigation report from the state of Saxony we find the connection between Woestmann's investment in Solon and van Aubel and von der Osten (German/English):

Die Q-Cells-Akquise
Zur Ansiedlung der Q-Cells AG führte der Zeuge Dr. von der Osten aus, er kenne die Gründer und Initiatoren der Q-Cells AG, die erst im November 1999 gegründet worden sei, über Freunde und Netzwerke. Herrn Reiner L. habe er seiner Erinnerung nach noch zu Zeite der DDR in seinem Kombinat, im Ingenieurkombinat Wuseltronik, kennengelernt. Es habe Gespräche bis zur Gründung gegeben, wie man sich eventuell eine Spin-Off-Lösung aus Solon vorstellen könnte. Zum Zeitpunkt der Gründung von Q-Cells sei der Zeuge Dr. Thomas A. Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender gewesen, der Zeuge Dr. von der Osten sein Stellvertreter. Unklar sei dagegen noch gewesen, wo eine Ansiedlung erfolgen sollte.

The Q-Cells acquisition
For the settlement of Q-Cells AG led the witness Dr von der Osten, he knows the founders and initiators of Q-Cells AG, which was founded in November 1999, through friends and networks. He remembered meeting Mr. Reiner L. at the time of the GDR in his collective, Wuseltronik engineering. There have been discussions to the founding, as one might imagine a spin-off solution from Solon. At the time of the foundation of Q-Cells, the witness was Thomas A. Chairman of the Supervisory Board, the witness von der Osten his deputy. On the other hand, it was still unclear where a settlement should take place.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
Meanwhile inside the Investigation report from the state of Saxony we find the connection between Woestmann's investment in Solon and van Aubel and von der Osten (German/English): Die Q-Cells-Akquise Zur Ansiedlung der Q-Cells AG führte der Zeuge Dr. von…
Solon collected €146 million in free money from the states of Berlin and Mecklengerg-Vorpommern in the couple years before bankruptcy. The EU anti-corruption office OLAF is investigating IBG/Q-cells for over €92 million in fraudulent subsidies.

Woestmann, van Aubel, von Falkenhausen, and von der Osten all profited while taxpayers and investors paid the price.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
It was pretty much impossible to connect Woestmann to van Aubel from the public record. Only when he gave shares to van Aubel and his gang did it become apparent waht was happening. Since then, victims of their previous schemes have helped us fit the pieces together.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
Kurt Beil
It's like saying ... judge he stole my thing .. and the judge says,, yes we agree he stole your thing, and it was very very bad ... but judge says nothing like ... "Give it back .. now!"
This is a very simplified, and idealized, way of looking at corporate law. If he stole $20, that's exactly how it would go down. Steal $100 million and it takes years. That's exactly how these guys get away with it.

Dinnies von der Osten, Thomas van Aubel, and Jutta von Falkenhausen were investigated for the IBG scandal and got off scot free. Now the EU is investigating the state of Saxony for the IBG scandal which happened in 2013. 5 years have gone by. Even when the state is forced to pay many millions of euros back to the EU for the scam, the people responsible will pay nothing. Their entire M.O. is to take advantage of these slow processes.

The founders are not playing the same game however and they van Aubel and his gang have already suffered their first loss to the founders.

Just because there are not public updates does not mean there is no progress. It just means we can't tip our hands until after the cards are played.

Van Aubel

Laurent in Envion-Founders
Coin Boss
These bills are now going unpayed, correct? Since van aubel and co-conspirators are not allowed to touch the money? Or is their some loophole that allows van aubel to still invoice Envion and deduct expenses?
Van Aubel's law firm is the legal council for the company. That is unchanged. It appears as if they are treating van Aubel's legal fees as outside the scope of the court ruling.

CEO (Matthias Woestmann)

air drops
Hmmm, there where also 6 months before to try and get an auditor or deliver the data to respective parts of the company. Or try to find an arrangement between shareholders. Or tell investors what's up. Didn't see anyone not hesitating there...
did you miss everything or a big portion like 6 months of activities?...
only MW could appoint an auditor
only MW communicated to courts & FINMA
only MW said they did not furnish him with the required accounts
only MW did not communicate...
Is it this hard to see the big picture?
MW = square root of all our problems
Laurent in Envion-Founders
Yup. Woestmann stopped all progress.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
Sure. Woestmann wants liquidation. Court set a deadline for getting an auditor before the Finma investigation started. Woestmann never got the auditor. No auditor ever contacted Trado/founders for ICO data. Woestmann missed deadline. Court ordered liquidation as a result which is just what Woestmann wanted.

Founders will fight it as much as they can.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
There is not. In the springtime, he told some investors he was paying himself a salary of $15k/month. We assume the court injunction stopped that, but it's possible that continued until FINMA took over. We also know that Thomas van Aubel's law firm has invoiced for legal services in the hundreds of thousands of euros.

That's all we know for sure.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
Turbo 3000
Do Woestmann and van Aubel have $100mm in the bank to pay for damages?
They have considerable assets from dubious investments in companies which received hundereds of millions of euros in government subsidies and filed bankruptcy shortly after.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
Envion team haven’t stated anything but receiving the salary all the time.
This is not true and it’s not something that was ever said anywhere.

Woestmann started paying himself a salary after stealing the company, but my understanding is that the court case stopped that.

There are no other employees that I’m aware of. Perhaps the answering service what some investors mentioned.

Trado team does not receive any money from envion.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
FunkyKoval 🇵🇱🇬🇧🇺🇸
Of course. What I am saying is that the whole dillution thing was a result of his collusion with van Aubel, and he only got there when he realised he may lose his job after the rest of you return to Germany. His insecurity made him collude with van Aubel…
He told me in early December that he had no goals of running the company in the long term.

He later mentioned doing an IPO after the ICO. But he wanted to do a small one for $30-40m and he wanted to do it by June or July. It makes no sense to have such a small valuation for a company that was just about to finish a $100m ICO nor to do it so fast without more preparation. I thought it was just stupid planning.

Unless of course the plan is to have a low valuation so van Aubel can execute a takeover as he did many times before with other companies. Or forget all the work to do an IPO and hostile takeovver, you can just steal the company when everyone is gone.
air drops
Hmmm, there where also 6 months before to try and get an auditor or deliver the data to respective parts of the company. Or try to find an arrangement between shareholders. Or tell investors what's up. Didn't see anyone not hesitating there...
Woestmann informed me in a meeting after the last grace period of onboarding an auditor was expired. I was then telling him that we have to work together and show that we found a solution to work together to convince the auditor that it is ok to work with envion. But he was not really listening and at that day explaining me his plan: he told me that the best option would be to buy some ETH and BTC now and then make sure that the company does a payment in kind (means giving back the amount of crypto paid to the investors) when liquidated so that a big amount of money will be left for shareholders (as crypto prices were down). After refusing this plan the contact ended again.
David Thompson🐇
Sounds like him. Must be frustrating for you having to deal with him.
You have no idea. We spent so much time with strategies how to talk some sense into MW.. we even included psychiatrists and other advisors to find out how to solve it. Until today I have no idea what is going on in that mind. We had everything from fraud over ego or mentally disordered to stupidity on the table but never got a feeling which percentage of what it could be which made it impossible to make progress. Maybe his trick is to change it everyday so that the strategy of the oponent does not work. I was telling someone a few days that I would prefer him being away with some millions so that the whole thing would at least make any sense. But what we have here is just 100% pure pointless destruction with no profit for nobody, just a giant multiplication of bad energy. - Directly after he told us about the illegal capital increase he was saying "sorry, I was getting paranoid in my flight back to Germany and then overreacted". Maybe that was true and we should wish him/us/the world that he finds healing for that paranoia some day.
air drops
And you didn't ask before the last grace period ended? It was publically known.
We put so much energy in trying to have some positive influence. Not to speak of the obvious offer/wish/begging to include us into his talkings to auditor etc. Just to give you an example of what we have to deal with him: "no I can do that myself, I dont need help". we: "ok, then maybe just as a help or small optimization as it is that important" - "no, I dont want to feel reviewed by you guys"


Laurent in Envion-Founders
Why does nobody care that I'm a French citizen as well? Is it to make people dislike me because of Trump. I can't tell why Woestman started mentioning that and why people repeat it.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
Joseph Lee
Just shows you how insane this cases and it’s really going nowhere as some of the main people have not even done depositions on all the facts This is going absolutely unequivocally no where from / in a regulatory perspective Civilly won’t matter because the…
This is a good opportunity to clarify something: I'm not a major person in this story. I'm simply the person that is very visible as I do communication.

This is one reason why attacks on me or inflating my role in general are misguided—the court, Finma, etc. don't see my contribution to the envion project as having any relation to the events which resulted in problems for the company or investors.

The 'main people' have indeed been involved in the process.

Court Case

Laurent in Envion-Founders
Joanna Washy
Instead he lined up a summer of travelling the world giving lectures on ICOs
Woestmann never thought there was fraud. He kept asking us to distribute tokens. He acted as if nothing was wrong in emails to me through the end of March.

We have documents which show he was trying to sell envion off with no mention of fraud.

Woestmann panicked when he found out founders were taking them to court and started false allegations.

Now he’s offering a secret deal to Peter and friends—the details of which we will never know because of their NDA. His charges against founders are false and now he wants to back out with another illegal scheme.

This time for a buyout of 390,000 CHF. Who knows what kickbacks are offered to the secret meeting to convince community? Peter accused me of charging conspiracy theory instead of being transparent with the offer from Woestmann.

Woestmann and van Aubel feel the pressure to drop this, but they are still trying to scam the community and the founders one last time.
Forwarded from Ed Torres
Rough translation:

Berlin (ots) - The CEO of envion AG, Matthias Woestmann, may only do significant business with the consent of the deprived of his majority envion founder. After the judgment of the district court Berlin (chamber for commercial affairs 90 / AZ: 90 O 38/18) not only Woestmanns free access to the assets of the investors is prevented, but this is prohibited also the Sycamore GmbH, which currently the majority of the shares the envion AG stops. This is a far-reaching decision for the founders of envion AG, Michael Luckow. The behavior of the new owners of envion AG, Matthias Woestmann (Quadrat Capital GmbH), Thomas van Aubel and Jutta Freifrau von Falkenhausen (Sycamore GmbH), scandalized the court as "immoral" and "particularly reprehensible" after the unlawful capital increase.

"With this judgment, we have won an important victory for ourselves and also for the investors of envion AG", says Michael Luckow, who represents the plaintiff Trado GmbH, in which the interests of the founding team are bundled. "Anyone who still believes that he can do business with Woestmann as envion CEO, must be aware of the risk that his business will not be valid, unless we have previously agreed to the business."

The founders had concluded a contractual agreement with Quadrat Capital GmbH, whose managing director was Matthias Woestmann, as part of the founding of envion AG, which carried out the very successful ICO a little later. Thereafter, Woestmanns Quadrat Capital should temporarily hold the shares of the founders for a short time to simplify the establishment, which corresponded to 81 percent of the shares of the company. Woestmann itself held 19 percent of the company shares. But instead of returning the shares as required (only several times verbally, then in January 2018 in writing) to the founders, Woestmann took advantage of the hour and carried out a capital increase without the knowledge of the founders. While the founders then held only 31 percent of the company and were deprived of their decision-making majority, Matthias Woestmann, his friend Thomas van Aubel and his wife Jutta Freifrau von Falkenhausen secured the majority stake in envion AG, just after the conclusion of the ICO and after about 100 million USD were in the cash registers of the company. Against the unlawful capital increase and the serious consequences for them, the founders defended legal.

The judges of the district court of Berlin assess the unlawful capital increase as a clear breach of duty by Woestmann against the contractually affiliated founders. The justification Woestmanns for the unlawful capital increase, the judges did not accept. Woestmann had claimed that the founders had contracted too many tokens to create. The judges stated in their judgment that the number of actually existing tokens corresponds to the specifications of the securities prospectus.

With this judicial statement also all the false allegations of Woestmann are leveraged, which let this launch in the media, to justify the unlawful capital increase and to specifically discredit the founders. This obviously false claim is also ridiculed in the investor community as "Woestmann's 40 million fairy tale".

Woestmann with his Quadrat Capital GmbH had violated his contractual obligations to the founders by "without consent" of the founders increased the capital of the company. "The capital increase weakened the economic substance of its shareholding as a result of the fact that they lost their majority shareholding and therefore can no longer adopt the decisions required by Article 12 of the envion AG by-laws." In addition, another breach of the contract by Woestmann is that it neither informed the founders of the intended capital increase nor sought their approval.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
He has great misdirection skills.

Nobody accused Woestmann of running away with ICO money. He attempted to sell the company and walk away with legal money, illegally obtained because of his illegal takeover. He is directing you to the pedestrian crime he did not commit instead of the white-collar crime the court found him guilty of.

Woestmann is not running the company with the intent to make good on the whitepaper. Period. What is he doing that requires transfers? Why no status update on mining? He is telling you that he couldn't be doing osmethign illegal, but he is not telling you how he is completeing the legal requirements of the token sale.

The reason for the situation—as confirmed IN COURT—is his criminal act of taking control of the company from the founders. Then because he refused to operate the company. Then because he tried to sell the company illegally. Then because he lied about all of these things and made up a story about the foundrs to protect himself.

The court looked at over 150 pages of material submitted by Woestmann's lawyers including an audit claiming to prove the extra tokens fiction. Theyu looked into the background and decided his claim had no truth to it. Period.

Best regards, Laurent


Laurent in Envion-Founders
laurent how long could court thing last?
We hope for early victories in the more straightforward decisions. The more complicated ones could take years. Hopeful the founders will already have shares back by then.

Maybe MMU mass production can start in 72 hours after funds are unlocked.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
Scam Hunter
When MMU?
Not speaking for envion: If and when a great constellation of events comes together favorably for us all. Really, there is no way for me to answer and even if I had a meaningful answer, I wouldn't be allowed to furnish it until the FINMA investigation is over. The flow of information has effectively been cut off. But my heart is still with you.
The Mmu’s already built are paid for by non ICO funds out of Trados pocket, as Woestman never released any of these funds to be used. Trado owns these mmu’s and not Envion.
The funds are still locked away in a swiss bank. So at least what has been said.


Laurent in Envion-Founders
funny you call this trolling. this was actually the expected case from the beginning - envion had no *registered* prospectus and accepted retail investments, it was clear that finma (and bafin) would investigate. the shareholder battle was merely a fun intermezzo…
Let's unpack just how wrong a single troll can be.

No prospectus is required for an ICO. Envion released one anyway.

The prospectus we had was sufficient for the financial product offered.

Envion specifically did not accept investments from retail investors where it was prohibited (USA/Germany).

The ICO was absoutely created with the intention that it would pass any scrutiny from regulators. Suggesting otherwise is ignorant of every communication we released since the beginning.

The shareholder battle, as you put it, is the reason the company did not continue—Woestmann's illegal takeover and his attempt to sell of the company instead of do mining and pay dividends.

The 'battle' is not something to be diminshed by quotation marks. People's hard-earned money is at stake. Legal actions have taken place that can ruin the lives of those involved.

The envion ICO was carried out in compliance with financial regulations as far as I know. The founders welcome the involvement of FINMA. Woestmann was board member and CEO during the ICO and he remains liable for actvities during the sale and everything that happened after taking control of the company.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
Sanjay Sen
Laurent - how much of the 100 million is still there?
Woestmann has reported that about $50m exists in fiat. Shortly before that he had reported $70m. It's not celar what happened to the $20m or how the $100m was reduced to only $70m. Some can be accounted by the small amounts from chargebacks, non-KYC, non-accredited, etc..

There is not reason to believe that he is reporting the wrong numbers, but only Woestmann knows the real number.
Alpha OmegaEnergy
- Bitcoin is down over 50% since ICO, how does this affect Envion holdings? - Does Envion hold BTC, ETH, others? - How much cash and where is the financial statements? - Who is doing the accounting? - Where are the founders actually posting about this project?…
It's not easy to answer these questions actually.

According to MW, there should be a capital of around 40M$ in bank accounts at Bank Frick Liechtenstein and Bitcoin Suisse + 12.284 ETH and 525 BTC that the founder team owes to Envion. Now that FINMA is involved, things might have changed a bit. We know some ETH was moved to an Exchange after FINMA took over, maybe on their instruction. So if the crypto is exchanged at today's rate then it would be an extra 6M$. At ATH it would be about 25M$.

I expect some financial auditing is on-going right now or is already completed but the documentation remains confidential for the moment.

At the moment the founders cannot communicate on behalf of Envion so they are currently available only here on this channel of Telegram. If I'm not mistaken the last facebook post was like back in May.

For the people having still locked tokens, there is nothing you can do. Just wait. MW will not answer technical support e-mail and he does not have any current authority to perform any corrective action as of now.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
Morufu Ajalenkoko
At last somebody talking sense and reasonably
Not completely. I understand the sentiment, but let's be very clear on things:

Trado's fees are paid by envion because Woestmann is using envion as his bank account to finance intimidating court actions against the founders. The founders are not responsible for that.

Trado's cases against Woestmann have been against his private company, Quadrat Capital, and against Sycamore—specifically not against envion so that no ICO investors' money would be used to defend against the lawsuits.


Laurent in Envion-Founders
We spent many hours talking with the journalists a couple months back. They can cherry pick the info they want to use even if they have the whole story.

The choice to quote me calling van Aubel and friends 'parasites,' but omitting the words of the judges calling their behavior "reprehensible" and "immoral" is a conscious choice to paint the founders' side as mudslingers instead of focusing on the mud.

Giving more space to the opinions of the ambulance-chasers at CLLB than the court of Berlin is a way to stir up more controversy rather than demonstrate the facts of the case which put controversy to rest.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
JC --- cryptosaurus
oh here we go again the Werner sloppy lazy biast crappy clickbait BS as only an idiot would write something so stupid with distorted facts all over the show... use some logic mate
Fintelegram makes it abundantly clear that they have no idea what Trado is or what envion as an entity is.

Michael and the founders created the company. Period. Woestmann came afterwords and took certain responsibilities. The founders are not an outside group that worked for Woestmann. The relationship between Trado and envion is more complex than a hired contractor.

The founders' lawyers' opinion is complete and includes all documents and communication related to envion. They are unequivocal in their belief that the assets developed by Trado are the legal property of Trado—keeping in mind that the Trado relationship was not intended to last past the moment Woestmann returned shares to the founders as specified in the contract between Quadrat and Trado.

Fintelegram is creating a fantasy scenario that pits two separate entities competing with each other. Trado would be a distant memory right now if not for the court-confirmed illegal breach of contract by Woestmann.

The founders legally own envion. They own Trado. Woestmann stealing envion doesn't mean he is then entitled to Trado's work.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
This Handelsblatt article is very thorough. And has deprived me of any hope I had left
I would say that very important facts are omitted to fit a pre-conceived narrative. Some points are patently false as anyone following the case and anyone who read the findings of the Berlin court can easily see.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
Handelsblatt is one of Germanys newspapers. They are mostly reporting about economics and so on. Normally they are trustworthy.
Disregarding the facts of the matter to get clicks with scandalous tales of disappearing money is not something I would put my trust in.

The FINMA investigation limits our ability to respond on certain topics, but I would direct everyone to the previously published materials which discuss in detail the progress of the company since the start of the project and the status of the ICO funds.

Handelsblatt misreported both topics, but that does not change the events which trasnspired. The choice to omit context which did not support their narrative, does not make their story more true.

It should be very telling that the findings of the Berlin Court contradict many of their statements and that they choose to rely on less credible sources for their story.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
David Thompson🐇
Not sure if it is just google translator but it comes across as derogatory “Luckow and his nerds”...
A more accurate translation might be "persons with the technical knowlege to understand cryptocurrencies and crypto mining."

HB has continually derided the team with descriptions of "t-shirts" and "baseball hats." For the record, I never saw one person come to work with a baseball hat on. Too bad they waste words on such (invented) pettiness.

Likewise, I've never used the abhorrent term "crypto evangelist" to describe myself, but it makes me out to be less serious to use such an empty term.

I guess the editors are more interested in clicks than journalistic standards over at Handelsblatt.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
Handelsblatt waited months after we spent a full day explaining everything to them before publishing a follow up story to their false reporting from May.

There was no report after court case which would have provided plenty of facts to inform investors and readers about the facts of the case.

Instead, they waited until there was more negativity to report on in the form of the CLLB sham case and until we were muzzled by investigation and can't fully respond.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
It's a wildlly inaccurate article and mischaracterization of both projects. FinTelegram is a publication run by known fraudsters Werner Böhm, Elfri Sixt, and Tamir Cohen.

Nothing they print is true in the sense that it accurately portrays reality. They distort truth to their own ends.


Laurent in Envion-Founders
Infinity 🔱
The fintelegram article is shockingly bias. Tamir may as well be giving Woestmann a blowy for his one sided attack on founders. I guess a joke publication has joke reporters.
One gets the impression that they are a bit upset about being scooped by Capital and looking for some kind of story to feel relevant.

FinTelegram and Handelsblatt focus on public relations because it’s a place to create controversy. Controversy gets attention.

They avoid a serious discussion of the court judgement. They don’t dare dig into the records of van Aubel and von der Osten.

They are terrified of those guys.

They are outclassed when it comes to publicly taking on financial crimes in print so they talk about the only thing they aren’t scared of covering—PR.

Nothing they say about press communications is going to change the decisions by Finma, the Swiss courts, or the Berlin courts. They make themselves irrelevant.

Unlock Token From CC Purchase

Laurent in Envion-Founders
At the moment, it's no longer possible. The liquidator asked that envion's online assets be shuttered and/or replaced with links to the liquidator website.

The liquidator should include a process for people in your position, however.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
alright thanks, good to know. So MW could have excluded anyone from CC unlock without providing a reason or notifying those investors? 😳 a bit baffled here
Trado was instructed to send out PINs and to remove certain users on a list from the database. I do not know if he conducted any other activities associated with CC investors.
Laurent in Envion-Founders
Laurent I have unlock my tokens with the pin sent to me email, but I cannot transfer my token out. Any advice ?
Contact Matthias Woestmann. He is still the CEO and responsible for envion. I'm sorry to say that I can't help.
Gabor Daniel Nagy
i bought with credit card and never received my private key
MW sent a list to the founders containing info of who gets a unlock code and who does not. No explanation as of why from Woestman. And its questionable how complete this list was.
The founders executed this list and can not look into it further or deal with individual cases due to court injunction.
If you have questions about why you did not receive a pin, you neeed to, and you already know it, contact Woestman, which is useless at this point.

However, i suggest to open a claim on envion’s official web site and keep the claim number for future reference once the founders have full controll back and can start operating a help desk in the name of envion.


Laurent in Envion-Founders
yabba dabba doo
The Envion website has been taken down and replaced with a simple text "The Swiss Cantonal Court of Zug has dissolved envion AG and ordered its liquidation. Official information about liquidation proceedings can be found on the liquidator's website: www.envion…
Envion’s online properties were edited to direct visitors to the link leading to the liquidation website at the request of the liquidator. Wherever possible, attempts to access these properties will be redirected to the liquidation website to minimize any contact with content that could potentially be misleading.

The liquidator’s website is the source of official information regarding envion. The founders will continue to operate their social channels, providing clarification for token holders about matters concerning the liquidation process and supporting the interests of the token holders including supporting the liquidation process where needed.

About Envion Analytics

Why did you make Envion Analytics?

To investigate what it can do with Ethereum Network, Node.js and other things like Bootstrap.


Please do it through this form (Please leave your contact details if it is a question).

Are there other websites for other Tokens?

Envion Analytics is shared publicly as to show the latest results of the investigation and it is made to extract individual Ethereum Smart Contract data, not just EVN Token. If you are interested in running a website with a different Token, we can discuss about it though this form (Please leave your contact details). The code for the website does not start working out of the box, but it should not be changed a lot to get the data for other Tokens.