Amazon Management is the Optec Creditor mentioned in the Optec vs We Shield lawsuit.
The Optec Creditor (Amazon Management, LLC) is the entity that filed the lawsuit in California concerning the ""Frivolous" (I would say fraudulent) UCC-1 financial statement that the We Shield gang filed.
Link to that suit here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_FpSX5WLEzLnCiY_kGonTHym-UX2Bz-E/view
Background from the Optec Complaint. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vAD2XKGt6IWlD0Q6YkyGSkt125e0dVL4/view
64. On September 24, 2021, Vintfeld, met with a third-party secured creditor of Optec (an “Optec Creditor”) outside of Optec’s offices in California. After verbalizing various extortionate demands of Optec, Vintfeld told the Optec Creditor, “I am going to burn [Optec’s headquarters] down and burn everyone inside” if Optec did not make all of the remaining payments under the Agreement to Defendants.
65. In an abundance of caution, the Optec Creditor immediately notified Optec’s management and its employees that were inside its offices that day.
66. Aside from the unhinged and menacing display of physical threats and pecuniary harm that Vintfeld communicated to the Optec Creditor and directed at Optec and its employees, neither Vintfeld nor his limited liability company, IronClad LLC, are identified as alleged secured parties under the UCC-1. Consequently, although Vintfeld and IronClad LLC attempted to add themselves to the list of signatories to the proposed agreement and plan of merger in or around
August 2021, his “standing” to travel to Optec’s offices to threaten the company and its employees as a purported creditor has no foundation in fact, and was wholly inappropriate.
67. Defendants have never retracted the extortionate threats or caused Vintfeld to immediately suspend his actions as a purported creditor or a representative of the Shareholder Defendants.
68. On September 24, 2021, and again on September 28, 2021, Vintfeld sent email communications to Optec contending that Optec had defaulted on its obligations under the Agreement and related documents, but failed, on each occasion, to annex any notice of default despite the references to same in the email communications. Specifically, the September 24, 2021 email states, “[p]lease find attached the draft default notification. If this matter isn’t resolved today a formal notice of default will be sent on Monday.” Upon information and belief, no formal notice was ever sent.
69. Four days later, on September 28, 2021, Vintfeld wrote, “I just realized I didn’t send the draft default letter [. . .] Please be advised[,]”, but he again failed to annex any correspondence that presumably would identify his standing or authority to make any demand(s) of Optec or detail the basis(es) for Defendants’ demands.
70. On or about September 30, 2021, the Optec Creditor, together with his attorney, participated in a Zoom videoconference with Vintfeld, and the Greenberg Traurig, LLP attorney who had represented CEM, We Shield, and the Shareholder Defendants in the failed merger, to consider Vintfeld’s claims and demands.
71. Vintfeld persisted in his extortionate demands, threatened a “whistleblower” complaint based on vague and speculative claims directed at the management style of Optec’s leadership, demanded that Optec’s leadership immediately resign and allow the Shareholder Defendants to take control of Optec and its many other business lines, or, alternatively, to force Optec into bankruptcy or start other legal proceedings arising from the failed merger for the purpose of destroying Optec and its other shareholders if Optec would not relent to Vintfeld’s outrageous demands on behalf of the Defendants.
72. On October 4, 2021, the Optec Creditor filed an action in California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to vacate the frivolous UCC-1 financing statement in the purported creditor names of Holdings and the Shareholder Defendants (except Vintfeld).
Here's the complaint for that lawsuit... https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_FpSX5WLEzLnCiY_kGonTHym-UX2Bz-E/view