This guy is suing IMGG
Vuksich v. Imaging3, Inc., Dean Janes et al.
(( there is a group on yahoo, but the link inside the post is broken ))
The CEO of IMGG claims to be a MENSA member, but for years has not been able to understand the demands of the FDA seeking comparitive imagery for his 3d x-ray imager. Never once has sent the FDA comparison images of the SAME body part.
The CEO has gotten himself into trouble with 2 toxic lenders, one he lost a court judgment to.
Now we have this shareholder suing IMGG, seeking to INVALIDATE THESE TOXIC LOANS AND TURN OVER THE TECHNOLOGY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS
Sounds like a noble cause
But in this post, the guy suing IMGG says he'd like to make the CEO rich! Something is not right about this guy
PaulVuksich Member Profile PaulVuksich
Sunday, September 09, 2012 6:47:46 PM
Re: lobcrab post# 51836
Post # of 51847
To LOBCRAB and STOCKMASTERFLASH,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. LOBCRAB addresses what needs to be done first which is to stop Mr. Janes from pursuing whatever course he pursuing for whatever agenda. STOCKMASTERFLASH then asks what is the little doggie going to do once he catches the school bus at the stop sign.
Mr. Janes has created significant hurdles for the product. STOCKMASTERFLASH is correct when he asks who would invest money when the money already invested for FDA approval has gone into the unknown. Ditto on his other points; only a fool would sign up for more of the same.
That said, LOBCRAB lays out a nice plan of action and STOCKMASTERFLASH lays out excellent cautions. However, I would ask STOCKMASTERFLASH to consider that shareholder approval of the amount of stock authorized is sacred. That sophisticated PIPE lenders know this and their PIPE agreements acknowledge this. Courts will enforce contracts but not contracts that smell and that do not comply with known corporate requirements. On the other hand, the less sophisticated and honest one is, the more likely it is that a court will make a corporation live up to its contract with you.
If you are a member of the Yahoo Group for Imaging3, you have received notice of a new filing which is our Reply to Imaging3's Opposition to our motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. We think Imaging3 made a number of admissions that helped us present evidence to the court. Barring some delay caused by the defendants, the court will rule on Friday, September 14th. Friday's hearing only addresses the second and third causes of action of the total of six. The court can rule for us on both, either or none. Please understand that judgments on the pleading are not routinely granted in the early stages of a case. If we prevail on both then (1) the Preferred A shares that give Janes absolute power will be nullified, and (2) there will be an election of a new board of directors of 7 members. I do not believe the court (or the SEC after a court order) will allow a Janes style selection of candidates.
As for the secret sauce, we understand that there are third party contractors who know exactly what's in it. We think Janes had to share the recipe because he didn't have the final skills to complete his concept product. If we prevail, the courts will force Mr. Janes to make full technical disclosures. And a new board will have the same third party contractors complete the FDA work.
Proceeding from the assumption that Janes really did assemble something as wonderful as he claims, I believe with a new board of directors there is money for FDA approval out there. There are people who pay far more for the interior of their private jet than the money we need to get through FDA approval. And with FDA approval, the big MO is on and existing creditors of Imaging3 can be paid in full, as they should be, without much concern. What if the product is worth $1 billion?
My client's purpose is to protect the property of the shareholders; he is one of them. He hopes to do well if there is a product as advertised. He also hopes that Mr. Janes will be satisfied with being very rich ($60 million) rather than filthy rich ($300+ million). Have some faith in the legal system. My client does.
#1). You have money. Other people want it. All of it!
#2). You want easy money. So does everybody else. They'll get it, too....yours! (and all of it!)
#3). You tell yourself you're smart. You won't lose your money. Fact: Other people are smarter,