Exobox Technologies Corp.

FOR SALE: Note Receivable in the face value of $615,000 from Burnt Hickory, LLC. Serious inquires only Exoboxceo@gmail.com

CURRENT STATUS

1. The Company is actively taking steps that it believes are in the best interest of the Company and shareholders;

2. The Company added members to its Advisory Board and concluded consulting agreements with others;
3. The Company is seeking an appropriate amount of financing to defend itself against shareholder lawsuits;

.
"What has Occurred since October 2010"
.
On October 5th, 2010 the current officers of the corporation assumed their duties and picked up the records from a Self-Storage Center and began the process of evaluating the current condition of the company. Management determined that the company was insolvent and only had been held together by a series of loans from shareholders. Another part of the review was to evaluate the current status of the technology, concepts, patents, and software it owned. The Company approached former vendors with first hand knowledge, experts and consulted with founding members in order to evaluate the technology and software. During the review current management found that past efforts of the company founders and other specialists who had attempted to sell the technology were unsuccessful. The company was in possession of an appraisal of SOS software in the amount of $250,000.00. The general consensus was that technology changes over time. Upon completion of the review and analysis of the results of that review, the company embarked upon a course to sell its technology and use what resources it could secure from the sale to attempt to reinvigorate the company economically.
Management had researched and defined some 36 issues it had to deal with by late November 2010. Some, but not all, of all the issues the company faced, follow:

1.    The company's SUEZ technology concepts were never developed as software, coded or flow charted.
2.    The company could not maintain a bank account because of a Texas Work Force lien exceeding $60,000 against it ;
3. The company (a Nevada Corporation) had not filed for authority to do business in Texas at any time previously;
4.    The company had no working capital, office, computers or office equipment;
5.    The company had no revenues;
6.    The companys financial statement listed debt in excess of $3.4 million;
7.    Management determined that Exo-Detect was blue screening (freezing up) and that the original presentation of the
software did not include a integrated "front end" and that the "front end" was not completed as of October 2010;
8.    Ted Ernst ( the company's Chief Technological Officer who was dismissed ) had sued and the Company's attorneys had withdrawn;
9.   Behr Construction had sued the company and the Company's Attorney's had withdrawn;
10. Exobox was listed as a defendant on a Class Action lawsuit in Federal Court but had not been formally served;
11. The company did not have funds to pay for large retainers in order to defend itself in a Federal Court action if served;
12. The company's incorporation in Nevada was about to be dissolved
13. The company had spent $135,000 with accountants early in 2010; however two years income tax returns had not been filed; and
14. Previous management had a history of issuing stock at the beginning of consulting agreements before services were preformed.

Each issue had to be defined, analyzed and then a plan of action had to be developed to deal with them all. Given the above issues and many others which are not listed, the board developed a plan of action whose ultimate goal was to reinvigorate the company economically. On October 5, 2010 the board inherited a Letter of Intent (not Definitive Agreement) whereby the company would sell its technology to a Kampa led group. The Letter of Intent was never completed, partially because of (1) the lack of a of a Definitive Agreement and (2) a lack of adequate funding by the Group. The Board reviewed the original Letter of Intent which expired on 10/15/2010 and determined to try to re-approach Mr. Richard Kampa to see if a sale could be accomplished. Finally a new Letter of Intent was agreed to and executed. Subsequently the company raised the funds and held a shareholders meeting on January 20, 2011 where the sale received shareholder approval. Included in the New Letter of Intent was the inclusion of a percentage of patent infringement law suit revenues (This item was not addressed in previous Letter of Intent.) Collection by Exobox of any revenues from the sale of its technology is dependent on Burnt Hickory, LLC ability, but not limited to, obtaining a grant, equity partner or financing to pursue the development of software, the ability of Burnt Hickory, LLC to develop the software successfully, the ability of Burnt Hickory, LLC to successfully sell the software, and the ability of Burnt Hickory, LLC to initiate and prosecute a patent infringement lawsuit. As of
February 1, 2011 Burnt Hickory, LLC has not been able to obtain the funds to begin development the technology.

Major items that occurred at the January 20. 2011 shareholders meeting were:

1. A proposal to give the authority to the Board of Directors to sell all the companies technology passed;

2. A proposal to ratify the creation of and transfer of the company's technology to a wholly owned subsidiary Suez Technologies Corp. passed;

3. A proposal to approve past actions of the Board of Directors was on the agenda but was withdrawn;
4. A proposal which asked shareholders to approve a reverse stock split leaving approximately 27% of the company in the hands of current shareholders was not approved;

5. The meeting was opened up for motions from the floor. A motion from the floor to give authority to the Board to effect a reverse stock split, if the Board saw the need, seconded and voted upon. The proposal, as made, would leave a minimum of 33% of the company in the hands of current shareholders and was passed unanimously . As of December 24, 2011 the Board has not taken any further action on this motion.

On May 8, 2011 all the elements necessary to complete the sale of all the companies technology, patents and software were completed and thus the validity of the Note Receivable was achieved. As part of management's plan and Agreement with Burnt Hickory, LLC, the Note Receivable became the only asset of Exobox's 100% wholly owned subsidiary, SUEZ Technologies Corp. SUEZ Technologies Corp was established as part of the Company's November 2011 business plan to hold the note receivable from Burnt Hickory, LLC in an effort to accomodate the Company's of debt reduction plan. Thestrategy was to negotiate complete release of Exobox Technologies Corp by Exobox debt holders in return for a secured interest in the Burnt Hickory note payable and/or stock. All future royalties, if the product is developed and under the Agreement were either payable to Exobox or assigned to Exobox. Since October 2010 Exobox has reduced its indebtedness and Exobox continues to negotiate. Exobox has continually attempted to settle all outstanding lawsuits and debts.

Exobox has continually explored business combinations and merger candidates. Exobox management is looking for merger candidates that have technology that is (1) developed, (2) has independent certifications, (3) the inventor has a track record of success in the industry. Exobox was been under severe attack on public board by a shareholder lead group, this has increased the companies ability to (a) secure funding; (b) secure board members and (c) secure interest in any potential merger or business combination.

Exobox was served with the State Shareholder Class Action lawsuit on May 31, 2011. The company evaluated the service and found it to be defective in several areas. Then, under advice of attorney's, the Company moved to accept it, re-define it and defend itself and began its proactive defense. Exobox attorney's maintain the Class Action lawsuit was so vague that an Answer to the petition could not be produced. Based on attorney's advice and analysis of the Class Action, the company filed a motion to require plaintiff's to produce a "More Definitive Statement" followed by a "Motion to Dismiss". The Class Action Complaint maintains that defendants, mostly attorney's, issued themselves stock and entered into transactions that may not of been in the best interest of Exobox Technologies Corp. and/or its shareholders. Exobox retained attorney's and defended its position. Shortly after accepting service Exobox's attorney's filed motions for Dismissal and/or a Motion for a More Definitive Statement. On January 23, 2012 Exobox received a Court order in the Class Action directed against the Company. The Company’s Motion for Dismissal was “granted in part”. The Court said that they would allow the Plaintiff’s to amend only on the narrow issues identified in Court: 1) to add factual allegations relating to public disclosure of a Sonfield’s trading letter; and 2) to plead any additional facts showing that, under Janus, Sonfield “made” any misstatements in Exobox’s public filings. The Plaintiff’s have 20 days to amend and submit. It is reasoned that the order restricts that the only claims against Exobox that will be allowed to go forward are those made in its public filings: Plaintiffs’ claims against Exobox are limited to the misstatements contained in Exobox’s public filings, which the Amended Complaint clearly, and appropriately, attributes to Exobox. “Sonfield prepared and filed a Form 10-SB registration statement on behalf of Exobox.” In other action, Exobox’s Motion for a More Definitive Statement was denied. Management has taken the position that Exobox Technologies Corp should of been a co-plaintiff in the Class Action. Any response from Class Action attorney's was due on or about February 12, 2012.

In November 2011 Exobox and members of current management and Board members were sued in Harris County District Court by shareholders for a Declaratory Judgement to among other things change the management of the company. The Company and individual defendants maintain that the suit contains untruths, distortions and half-truths told in story like fashion in order to further disparage current management efforts. Management is regretful of the lawsuit leaders intentions and their boasts that the effort is "entertaining" and has developed a plan to actively pursue remedies, legal options, settlement and/or counter suits if necessary.

"SAFE HARBOR STATEMENT" UNDER THE PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995
This presentation may contain forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. The statements in this release are forward-looking statements that are made pursuant to safe harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results, events and performance could vary materially from those contemplated by these forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which may cause China Crescent's or any other Company named in this email's actual results in future periods to differ materially from results expressed or implied by forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things, product demand and market competition. You should independently investigate and fully understand all risks before making investment decisions.