Monday, April 27, 2015 8:43:18 AM
From; http://www.courts.state.md.us/businesstech/pdfs/mdbt1-13.pdf
Start reading on page 8 about counts I and II. Count one is all about IMPHP not having enough votes, while IMPHO did have the votes necessary to change the terms of the preferreds terms. The whole argument is that IMPHP did have enough votes and and should not be held to the vote by the IMPHO holders. It says nothing to that if the IMPHP shareholders did not approve by the 67% vote, that the IMPHO vote is then invalid.
You say the lawsuit is to reverse the event. At one point that was true. But the courts have ruled on several of the accounts that would affect that for the IMPHO shareholders leaving the IMPHO shareholders in a weaker position.
Avant Technologies Equipping AI-Managed Data Center with High Performance Computing Systems • AVAI • May 10, 2024 8:00 AM
VAYK Discloses Strategic Conversation on Potential Acquisition of $4 Million Home Service Business • VAYK • May 9, 2024 9:00 AM
Bantec's Howco Awarded $4.19 Million Dollar U.S. Department of Defense Contract • BANT • May 8, 2024 10:00 AM
Element79 Gold Corp Successfully Closes Maverick Springs Option Agreement • ELEM • May 8, 2024 9:05 AM
Kona Gold Beverages, Inc. Achieves April Revenues Exceeding $586,000 • KGKG • May 8, 2024 8:30 AM
Epazz plans to spin off Galaxy Batteries Inc. • EPAZ • May 8, 2024 7:05 AM