I see what you're saying but the CEO blatantly lied to franchisees-licensees and to shareholders alike. IMO, shareholders are entitled to reimbursement in the same way that franchisees are/were. Class action lawsuit are usually very easy to be a part of. You submit proof of your shares during (x)date->(y)date, give them your email, phone #, address etc, then you eventually receive a settlement (if the ruling is in your favor) thereafter. I mean, Victor lied about his flagship product. I'd say that's a pretty big deal. I'd also say shareholders absolutely have recourse against the company for the loses incurred yet they are only seeking "accredited investors" to purchase preferred shares because they can't take the offering through the SEC since they aren't compliant.
Per Case 15-CV- 02469 First Amended Verified Complaint
58. That in or about April 2013, based on communication-warnings issued by the FDA and other communications in or about November 2012, PBH discovered that the statements made by the Victor on behalf of the Company were willfully false and misleading including the statements that he had invented a process which provided a 97% live cell recovery using his patented SVFSCR Processing of adipose stromal vascular fraction stem cell rejuvenation for redelivery in human begins; that the process was compliant and covered under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) [42 §U.S.C. 264]; that Victor was working with the Food and Drug Administration [“FDA”], where the FDA had determined the process was exempt from the requirements of 21 CFR 1271.l0(a)( l).First Amended Complaint For Direct Shareholder(s), Employee(s) and Licensee(s)Claims Against IntelliCell Bio Science, Steven Victor, and Regen Medical
59. At all times during the relevant period in response to the discovery of the false-misleading information and after June 2013, PBH provided written notice to the Company advising IntelliCell of material defaults in the Company’s Franchise Agreement terminating the agreement with them.
60. On or about July 29, 2015, Defendants admitted there fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract by reason that the SVFV Process was and or did not have the required FDA approval as claimed; that the Process was not exempt from a required FDA license; that Plaintiff was not using the SVFV Process; that the Defendant owed the franchisees-licensees the damages as regulated by the terms of their contract.
