Saleen Automotive, Inc. (fka SLNN)

[FredVestor]

Another fun fact from the 10K. SLNN changed their approach to the bank lawsuit since I have published the full lawsuit and been criticizing their disclosure of the claim.

In the original disclosure they said that the claim was "without merit" now they changed their approach completely:

Although we currently believe that resolving claims against us, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on the our financial statements, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and our views of these matters may change in the future.

This is far from "without merit"

the full disclosure:

In February 2014, SSC received a Complaint from Citizens Business Bank (the “Bank”) alleging, among other matters, breach of contract due to non-timely payment of November and December 2013 principal amounts owed, which we paid in December 31, 2013, and the occurrence of a change in control as a result of the Merger. In April 2014, the Bank agreed to dismiss the suit in exchange for payment of $124,000 that was applied towards principal and unpaid fees along with advance loan principal and interest for May, June and July 2014, and the agreement to pay the remaining recorded balance due of $443,000 to the Bank in August 2014. From August 2014 to March 31, 2015, in exchange for payments totaling $90,000, the Bank agreed to extend this arrangement through various dates with the last date being March 2015. We did not pay the then outstanding principal and interest in March 2015 and the Bank has not agreed to an additional extension in connection with the default due to the Bank’s belief that a change in control occurred. On May 14, 2015, we were notified of a lawsuit filed by the Bank in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, alleging breach of the Loan Agreement with the Bank (“Loan Agreement”), breach of a commercial guaranty by Steve Saleen and indebtedness for principal and interest of at least $369,302, and seeking appointment, which has not been granted by the court as of the date of this filing, of a limited purpose receiver and a temporary restraining order enjoining us from transferring the SSC collateral securing loan. The main complaint by the Bank stems from our reverse merger that occurred in June 2013 whereby the Bank deemed this event to constitute a change in control, as defined in the loan agreement. Although we currently believe that resolving claims against us, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on the our financial statements, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and our views of these matters may change in the future.