Atoll Financial Group

Review: [redacted] (formerly [redacted] engaged Atoll Financial Group to secure funding. After paying all fees required and waiting for some sort of presentation to potential investors we were told that they were unable to present due to formatting issues within the documentation and the fact that we had changed our name in the mean time. We provided all supporting documents relating to the name change which in no way altered the financial data provided to them. The "formatting" issues were a result of them not being familiar enough with [redacted] to know that fonts look different when you zoom in!During the year that we attempted to work with them we expressed some frustration with the delays. Their responses were condescending and often overly aggressive to the point of speaking in raised, angry voices. Many of the excuses they used to explain why they were not bringing our proposal forward had no substantial link to our financial presentation but more so in the "formatting" of the data.Their promise to present, not even secure, funding fell extremely short of our contract.Desired Settlement: We are asking for a refund of the money we paid out to have them present our proposal to potential investors.

Business

Response:

May 5, 2014To whom it may concern,The complaint levied against Atoll Financial Group, Inc.,("AFG") and attached to the letter referenced above is a frivolous claim from a disgruntled former client.The relationship between [redacted]., (the "Company") and AFG started on May 23, 2013 when a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties was executed. AFG was retained to perform due diligence services for a non-refundable fee of $30,000.00, MOU Section 3, subsection a), and subsequently take the transaction to market subject to the Company complying with the AFG due diligence team recommendations, meeting the investors) financial criteria, overall financial plan being acceptable to the investors), and all required appropriate investment, financing and other related documentation, in form and substance being acceptable to AFG,Even though AFG provided more than, ample time (9 months) for the Company to meet basic industry standard due diligence requirements in order to take the transaction to market in compliance with Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules, the Company failed to meet the aforementioned standards. During this period AFG cooperated, supported and advised the company in its endeavors, well beyond the scope of our mandate, The Company's CEO, who is also one of the Company's major shareholders, changed the legal name of the Company on the eve of going to market and without consultation with AFG. When advised that all documentation previously provided would need to reflect the new name of the Company, the CEO terminated the MOU on behalf of the Company.Basic due diligence requirements established by FINRA and SEC exist to protect investors while promoting business growth. The experience and due diligence process with this Company and its CEO highlighted the risky nature of investing in tightly held enterprises. The Company failed to recognize and capitalize on multiple opportunities extended to it by AFG to address the Cormpany's flaws, and in an event of impulsiveness terminated the MOU with AFG without understanding the consequences of this .AFG does not have any liability of any sort to [redacted], its affiliates, subsidiaries or principals. The complaint is frivolous and AFG intends to defend its excellent reputation to the fullest extent of the law.