InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 5
Posts 473
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 07/13/2006

Re: None

Friday, 11/11/2016 10:29:14 AM

Friday, November 11, 2016 10:29:14 AM

Post# of 59549
news 10/20/16 old but nice

Imaging3, Inc. (OTCQB: "IGNG") Announces Denial of Vuksich Application for Writ of Certiorari by the United States Supreme Court
22 days 1 hour 41 minutes ago - DJNF

Imaging3, Inc. (OTCQB: "IGNG") Announces Denial of Vuksich Application for Writ of Certiorari by the United States Supreme Court
BURBANK, Calif., Oct. 20, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Imaging3, Inc. (OTCQB:IGNG) announced today that on October 3, 2016 the United States Supreme Court denied John Vuksich's application for a Writ of Certiorari in connection with the December 2015 and February 2016 Rulings of the Ninth Circuit.

In May of 2012, John M. Vuksich, a shareholder of the Company who alleged that he held shares or proxies totaling more than 30,000,000 common shares in the Company (approximately 5.95% of the then-outstanding stock in the Company prior to the Company's bankruptcy filing), filed a shareholder derivative action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Imaging3. In that litigation, Vuksich challenged certain corporate actions taken by Imaging3 beginning in 2010, including the Company's amendments to its articles of incorporation authorizing the Company to increase its authorized number of shares of common stock and to authorize the issuance of preferred stock. Among other things, Vuksich sought an order voiding certain company financing agreements and sought an order compelling Imaging3 to fill vacancies on its Board of Directors. This litigation, which also sought to alter the equity structure and management of Imaging3, required the Company to unnecessarily expend limited resources in terms of both management time and funds for attorney's fees. Imaging3 has long believed that the Vuksich litigation could and would be defeated and vigorously opposed the litigation at significant expense.

Ultimately, the Vuksich litigation evolved into the following appeals from United States District Court rulings which were heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 9, 2015:

-- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case, Case No.: 13-56695 (9th

Cir.), appeal filed September 30, 2013, appealing the District Court's

dismissal of the initial appeal of the order.



-- Order Disallowing Claims Nos. 23 and 24, Case No.: 14-55499 (9th Cir.),

appeal filed March 31, 2014, appealing the District Court's order

affirming the order of the Bankruptcy Court.



-- Order Denying Motion for Abandonment of Potential Claims Against Officers

and Directors, Case No.: 14-55521 (9th Cir.), appeal filed April 2, 2014,

appealing the District Court's order affirming the order of the

Bankruptcy Court.



-- Order Confirming Debtor's First Amended Plan, Case No.: 14-55466 (9th

Cir.), appeal filed March 24, 2014, appealing the District Court's order

affirming in part and reversing in part the order of the Bankruptcy

Court.

The court ruled in favor of the Company on all four appellate issues.

On December 18, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the rulings of the United States Bankruptcy Court and the United States District Court related to four above appeals that Vuksich had filed, asserting:

1. The Bankruptcy Court and the District Court should not have confirmed

Imaging3's Chapter 11 plan of reorganization;



2. The claim that Vuksich filed in the Imaging3 bankruptcy case was

improperly disallowed by the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court;



3. The Bankruptcy Court and the District Court should have abandoned the

Vuksich litigation;



4. The Bankruptcy Court and the District Court should have dismissed the

Imaging3 Chapter 11 bankruptcy case because the court had no jurisdiction

over the case.

On February 2, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Judges Tashima, Callahan, and Hurwitz voted to deny Vuksich's petition for a panel rehearing. Judges Callahan and Hurwitz voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Tashima concurred. The full court has been advised of the petition, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc were thusly denied.

In April 2016, Vuksich appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari on the Ninth Circuit rulings dismissing his appeals. On October 3, 2016, the Supreme Court denied Vuksich's application for a writ of certiorari, thereby terminating the Vuksich Litigation.

Dane Medley, Chairman/CEO of Imaging3, commented "We are very pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling. This ends this protracted and troubling litigation in favor of the Company. Justice has indeed been served."