Bots Inc (BTZI)

[CashBowski]

Yes, absolutely!

Details of any pending lawsuit is considered material and has to be disclosed to shareholders in their quarterly filing. If they were served after the end of their fiscal quarter, then it would be disclosed in subsequent Events.

If you don’t see it disclosed in the quarterly that was just posted, then it would definitely have to be in the next report. Looking at the dates when they were served, they really should’ve disclosed it in subsequent events — but, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s not, considering they’ve consistently failed at disclosing material information on form 8-K.

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Ronald Sassano, Zoha Development, LLC. Carl G. Hawkins served on 3/7/2018, answer due 3/28/2018; Michael Hawkins served on 2/15/2018, answer due 3/28/2018; MCIG, Inc. served on 2/11/2018, answer due 3/28/2018; Paul Rosenberg served on 2/23/2018, answer due 3/28/2018; Scalable Solutions L.L.C. served on 3/16/2018, answer due 4/6/2018.(Santos, Antony)

The whole complaint is pretty interesting validating a lot of what I/we suspected, but here are some points of interest, however one should read the complaint in its entirety to have a better understanding of the 12 claims for relief against:

Michael Hawkins
Defendant
Paul Rosenberg
Defendant
Carl G. Hawkins
Defendant
MCIG, Inc.
Defendant
Scalable Solutions L.L.C.

Plaintiff
Zoha Development LLC.
Ronald Sassano ....

59. Although Defendant(s) did in fact issue to Plaintiff(s) some of the stock they were obliged to, they have since engaged in a systematic effort to thwart any effort by Plaintiff(s) to sell these shares over the market or otherwise.

60. To that end, Defendant(s) have concocted a series of ruses or artifice(s) calculated or devised to protect and manipulate the market for MCIG’s common stock to the direct detriment of Plaintiff(s).

61. For example, on or about June 6, 2017 via email, MCIG, through Rosenberg and R. R. Hawkins, told Plaintiff Sassano (and several MCIG employees with MCIG shares) that MCIG management was trying to push the company to new levels andfurther, attempted to dissuade Plaintiff Sassano and MCIG employees with MCIG shares, from selling over the market so as to facilitate reach these new levels.

62. In at least one email, MCIG, through Rosenberg and M. Hawkins wrote Plaintiff Sassano the following: You know how important the share price for [the] financial health of the Company is suggesting that any sales over the market might adversely affect the very financial health of MCIG.

63. In another scheme designed to prevent or preclude Plaintiff(s) from selling their shares, MCIG, through Rosenberg and M. Hawkins, notified Plaintiff Sassano of a newly adopted “policy” mandating that each employee or shareholder provide monthly account statements to management for any securities account holding MCIG shares and further, mandating that said individuals sign leak-out agreements.

64. The apparent objective of said policy, was to limit sales (and thus the supply) of the stock on the market so as to affect its price on the market.

65. Said conduct was no more than a thinly veiled ruse and an attempt to interfere with the free and fair operation of the market for these securities and appears precipitously close to bordering on market manipulation by a public company officer.

66. In and about June of 2017, Rosenberg attempted to cajole Plaintiffs into signing a sign a leak-out agreement and recruited others (intermediaries) to reach out to Plaintiff Sassano and persuade him accordingly.

67. This was a blatant effort to limit sales of any MCIG stock and control or manipulate the market for same.

68. Moreover, Defendant Rosenberg asked that Plaintiffs not sell any stock into the market “right now” as MCIG was working with an investment banker referred to by Defendant(s) as “Michel”.

69. Defendant(s) claimed that “Michel” was sitting on the bid price, through his family office to help support the stock price.

70. Upon information and belief, Defendant Rosenberg expressed to several others, considerable consternation and concern as to Plaintiffs’ prospective sales of MCIG stock over the market.

71. Mr. Rosenberg further elaborated, admonishing Mr. Sassano that: any selling would damage the Company’s stock, and the Company would lose [the stock promoter] and the benefit of his efforts to support the bid.

72. Plaintiffs refused, thus did not sign the leak out agreement.

73. These statements, when viewed through the lens of the June 6 email, suggest conduct on the part of MCIG management likely to run afoul of state and federal securities laws and the rules and regulations as promulgated thereunder.