Drone Services USA Inc. (DSUS)

[Seaam]

RE: TEXAS CASE AND PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT


Peter probably has not signed the final version and probably has not honored the initial payment even though he negotiated a preliminary version. See court record posted Nov 21 (http://courts.dallascounty.org

Civil District Court Case Number DC-13-02759

PETER DID NOT HONOR THE TWO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS NEGOTIATED WITH THE LARRY SAZANT LAWSUIT. Why would Texas Case be any different?

IMO, that is why the court has been petitioned for an enforcement of the agreement by the Plaintiff.
http://courts.dallascounty.org/ViewDocumentFragment.aspx?DocumentFragmentID=11540254&CheckDocumentGroups=0
and specifically,

Subsequently, Defendants did not perform as agreed. Despite numerous attempts by Plaintiff to work with Defendants in order to effectuate the settlement agreement, Plaintiff was unsuccessful. Accordingly, pursuant to the attached agreement, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the amount of $156,000. The handwritten agreement is dated, signed by all parties and their respective counsel, is clear and unambiguous, and states specifically, that it can be enforced in the event that a subsequent typewritten version is not executed. Counsel for Defendants never provided the typed version of the settlement agreement to Plaintiff’s counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff relies upon the handwritten settlement agreement. This agreement provides that if Defendants do not perform, then Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the amount of $156,000, for which Plaintiff hereby requests that the court enter judgment.

The final judgment will append court costs, interest, collection costs, attorney fees, etc. that should make the final amount in excess of quarter million dollars IMO.

We will just have to wait for the final hearing, as scheduled by the court, on November 24.

All will be made public record. But in the meantime, one may contact Milan Saha, the SEC and corporate (PVEC) and personal (Peter Villiotis) attorney, who has been approved by the Texas judge to represent both Peter and PVEC. He may give some insights.

Any non released pubic information could be considered inside trading and privileged information.

IMO, the outcome of this case will ultimately have implications for the going-concern of PVEC and will ultimately also hold Peter accountable to an appropriate court for his personal actions. I have always said this is an important case to monitor.