US Stem Cell Inc (USRM)

[Dragon Lady]

Quote, "What was the breach in contract for the suit to be filled? Did BHRT miss a payment or extend the duration of the terms, I am just not sure I understand the merit behind the lawsuit? They handed money over to a start up company and what were they expecting?
"
They LOANED MONEY as CREDITORS and were expecting to GET PAID BACK- like how it works in the world of loans and creditors and debts? Where is it that it says "they handed over money to a start up company"???? Did B of A just "hand over money" to a start up and expect no repayment of the DEBT? Is that how banks work? Cause this money is related to bailing out the original original "Bluecrest" loan and B of A for a loan going bad (and the Bluecrest loan is in this mix too I think, but LOANS, aka debt, not charitable gifts or donations to a start up or whatever?) Loans, debt mean one expects to get paid back- they weren't buying stock or equity in the company as risk takers. Debt is always in first position over equity. For example, in a BK proceeding, Bond holders, aka "debt" holders are always paid back first before one cent ever goes to any stock/equity holders. It's why stock share holders almost never get a cent in a BK proceeding- as all the bond holders and other "creditors" (accounts payable, vendors, equipment loans, whatever-anyone owed a payment) always get paid first out of any money left in the BK proceeds and stock/equity holders are always paid last, which usually means nothing. Debt/loans are not "money just given"- they are loans with expectations as creditors of being paid back.

http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2010/07/26/daily1.html

That's the time frame of the B of A loan going into default, which is in the mix of all this and why the Leonhardts are "on the loan" to B of A as "guarantors" in the first place- it's a big, complicated series of BHRT teetering on BK at the time and then the Leonhardts acting as "guarantors" and creditors using their own assets and money- not GIFTS, but loans/debt IMO.

Thus, if one reads the lawsuit as filed, all allegations are answered pretty crystal clear IMO. It's alleging they (Bioheart) "subordinated" her (Leonhardt) w/o rights to do so and also then paid off many other creditors ahead of her, including insiders via the creation of some insider run "thing" the LLC corp, known as Northstar Biotech LLC (who they, BHRT then granted a "lien" to essentially everything BHRT owns, could own, might ever own, etc) but excluded her from that too- and the suit is even alleging the validity of how an LLC such as Northstar can even exist- as it's like a tiny private company within a public traded company- essentially being given total control and rights to everything the public company has or ever could have. I personally never understood how Northstar LLC and the "lien" thing and all was even legally possible for a public traded company- it makes zero sense to me, IMO.

http://lawsuitpressrelease.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Leonhardt-v.-Bioheart.pdf

That's then entire initial suit as filed- on a public site. It's all in there- what they, the plaintiffs, are alleging and filing for. Not confusing IMO?

They, Bioheart, paid off her ex husband's (Howard Leonhardt) portion of the debt owed and then "subordinated" her and have never paid her- it's pretty cut n dry IMO. Just read the suit filing- it's all in there? What's confusing or not clear?

They, the Leonhardt's when married didn't just "hand a bunch of money to a start up", that's nonsense, LOL? They acted as creditors and "guarantors" to a very specific loan that BHRT needed to stay out of default related to a public traded stock company, Bioheart- they were creditors, not "handing out gifts or charity"? Where is that written? If that was the case then why is BHRT carrying the DEBT (it's listed ON THEIR BALANCE SHEET UNDER LIABILITIES/DEBTS) why carry it then "on their books" to this day? Why didn't they just discharge it and write it off then if it's got no merit as a valid debt obligation, is not owed, is frivolous or whatever? No such thing as company's carrying "phantom debts" on their books from an audited accounting standpoint? That debt of $1.5 million "subordinated debt, related party" is there, and has been there since the 2010 time frame as alleged in the suit, and is there "on the books" for a reason IMO and landed on their balance sheet for a reason- it wasn't some "they just gave um money" deal? Else, WHY is it booked under DEBTS OWED on their own balance sheet? Why?

It's not confusing at all IMO. They paid her husband back using stock and warrants, they paid back a bunch of debts to Northstar LLC members, aka "insiders" (BOD members and a few others) and they haven't paid her- and she wants to get paid back for a debt/loan that she made to BHRT while married to her husband, then CSO/CEO of the company prior- who was paid back his portion, while she's gotten nothing on her 50/50 split portion post divorce, spelled out in the BHRT 2010 10-K filing (the divorce splitting of the Leonhardt BHRT loan/debt, PAGE 68, yr 2010 10-K filing) in pretty plain English IMO.

My 2 cents. Pretty clear cut to me.