This is my opinion on the court case:
1) On Nov. 4th defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.
2) On Nov. 6th the above motion was stricken because it was not filed properly according to the court's practices and procedures. Most likely because MinrveWorks' attorney, John M. Gross, is from outside the jurisdiction and was admitted to practice in the district via Pro Hac Vice.
3) The same day MinervaWorks filed a motion for conference addressed to the Judge.
4) On Nov. 11th the Plaintiff provided a letter responding to the motion.
My thoughts are that this complaint was initiated because of a prior agreement/understanding between MinervaWorks and Ascento Capital. Xalles Holdings was named a defendant because of the acquisition...attorneys always name everyone possibly related to the case as a defendant and force the defendants to prove otherwise.
From what I understand XALL was served on Oct. 14 and had until Nov. 4 to answer, which was the same day Rodney Bowers (Minerva) filed the motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint - through Atty John Gross.
I might be missing it, but I don't see that XALL has filed any motions or answered the complaint. It is possible John Gross addressed it in the 11/4 motion to dismiss. It seems that XALL's position is that they are not a party to the complaint and that is the reason MinervaWorks wants to conference with the Judge. John Gross may or may not be representing XALL.
I expect this will be settled out of court but it will take time. I am not losing sleep over this complaint as this may be solely MinervaWorks problem. Yes, XALL owns MW now, but typically stock purchase agreements (they called it a share purchase agreement in the PR - the same thing) have representations and warranties that protect buyers from pre-acquisition lawsuits/situations like this and other unknowns such as past taxes due, etc.
This has to run its course. This is a small issue that may not even involve XALL in the end. Unless Ascento was exclusively representing MW and XALL purposely circumvented Ascento by violating an executed NDA, which seems unlikely. There are other scenarios but not worth the speculation at this point. I expect positive PRs soon.
This is all just my personal opinion...go $XALL and GLTA!
