Impact Fusion International Inc (IFUS)

[loanranger]

I don't know much about IFUS at all, except I think I know these things:
1. They Voluntarily de-registered their shares in 2009, ending their SEC filing obligations.
2. They provided reports to OTCMarkets in 2009 and 2010 before ceasing to provide financial information publicly entirely on 12/30/10. (IMO at this point everyone should have exited the stock...looks like most did: https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/IFUS/chart)
3. AS I UNDERSTAND IT from the order of the US District Court dated 7/19/16:
In late 2012 a letter of intent was signed with a lender wherein a subsidiary of the company would borrow $250K which would be guaranteed by IFUS and convertible at the option of the lender into a 33% interest in the company's common shares. Meanwhile, without notifying the lender, the subsidiary's Board voted to issue affiliated parties some Preferred shares. That obviously would have affected the value of the lenders converted common and undoubtedly his willingness to enter the loan agreement.

About a month later the final agreement was signed.
The lender made a few payments to and on behalf of the IFUS subsidiary totaling a little less than the agreed amount.
The subsidiary issued the Preferred shares.
The lender found out about it 4 months AFTER they were issued and demanded repayment. He didn't get it so he sued.
Some people here got royally pissed and said so.

I'm sure I left a lot of stuff out, but since the above has little to do with what drew me here I've already spent more time on it than I intended. If I've made any significant mistakes I'm sure someone will correct them.


The lender now appears to be suing some of the people that he royally pissed off and has reached a point in the proceedings where the Court has required the venue on which the pissed off people expressed themselves to identify one of them. In reaching that decision the Court used standards developed in a previous case (aka a precedent). There are 5 elements required by that precedent and they are why I stuck my nose in here.
It's not just a simple matter of "if the court decides that so-and-so knowingly made false assertions that defamed the plaintiff he must be identified". Ironically, in the case that established the precedent, none of the 4 John Does was required to be identified despite numerous arguments presented by the plaintiff. The final John Doe was "tested" separately in an appeal and the Court decided that, in spite of having made several statements that could, and in all likelihood would, have been found defamatory at trial, those John Doe statements were not shown to have directly harmed the plaintiff (which the Court deemed was one of the standards).

There seems little question that a number of the statements made here were malicious and derogatory as plaintiff asserts in his affidavit (some would describe them in stronger terms) but he provides a very broad description of how he was harmed by those statements on Page 5 of that submission. In the Motion that the plaintiff filed seeking the ID's, which was granted in part, he identifies the precedent case and asserts that he has met the standards therein.
I think that one of the issues that will be raised before any identification is actually provided will be whether any real harm has been shown. Since the Court, in its Order, only asserts that one post justifies their decision, I believe that would also require that any harm that can be shown to have occurred came about as a result of just that one post.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards
/read_msg.aspx?message_id=109899512


Nobody asked me, but I can't help pointing out that it's not unusual in the OTCMarket for shady people to come together. Shareholders almost always come out on the short end of their transactions and most times they should see it coming.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=6528875
https://www.otcmarkets.com/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=41608