InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 93
Posts 8868
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 05/06/2014

Re: PhenixBleu post# 284841

Saturday, 06/02/2018 7:30:19 AM

Saturday, June 02, 2018 7:30:19 AM

Post# of 298910
Case Update - MyECheck v. Ken Maciora et al

Ken Maciora filed a Cross-Complaint with 14 Causes of Action in April. The Company filed an Answer this past week denying all claims. Essentially, Maciora regurgitated the four-year old Sierra Global Conspiracy Theory he put forth in his failed Federal Court pro se litigation against PMB Helin.

My non-professional opinion is Maciora is attempting to use the Court Discovery process to find proof that will put legs on his assumptions of wrongdoing. This is the ONLY defensive strategy he can use. The vast majority of allegations made are unrelated to the core issue advanced by the Company, which is Maciora is not entitled to shares the Board did not approve. It's loaded with the same gossip, hearsay, and innuendo we've come to expect from him since he joined forces with the person(s) that initiated the Sierra Global Conspiracy Theory back in 2014.

Maciora puts forth his belief that Green Pay is a sham business. Isn't it weird then that he alleges Zalunardo is entitled to shares while leading a sham business for nine months, and therefore Maciora ought to be able to buy them from him? Maciora admits he bought these shares (that the Board never approved). His assumption is that a contract worker not on the board can approve the issuance of shares. Maciora reveals his lack of business acumen throughout the Cross Complaint. As is typical with Maciora, he leaves out key facts that work against his narratives, and has his own version of facts (one of my favorite clauses from his failed Federal Court case in Washington). One such fact is Zalunardo was termed for cause, a corporate action that can negate conditions of employment. The filings show Zalunardo refused to sign his termination agreement.

Another fun fact is Maciora signed an NDA with the same "sham business" and violated it, according to the Company. Is calling it a sham justification for the breaches? I think not.

We are fortunate to have an excellent team of attorneys. They have succeeded in getting sanctions for Maciora. The Court has noted Maciora's legal incompetence. Maciora will be subject to a jury trial. Their opinions are the only opinions that matter.

Link to the case:

Securities Fraud, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Intentional Interference with Prospective
Business Advantage, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, Business and Professions Code 17200, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/PublicCaseAccess/Civil/SearchByCaseNumber

Year Filed 2016 and Case 00202624

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.