InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 0
Posts 235
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/04/2022

Re: None

Saturday, 08/26/2023 3:20:51 PM

Saturday, August 26, 2023 3:20:51 PM

Post# of 16732
I've been advised by Bret and Jon that my offer has been rejected. In the next few days we will be launching a website at nanologixlitigation.com that will explain our intentions on how we will proceed. In the meantime I am providing the following communications sent to Bret that is self explanatory. No need for personal attacks, I will not be responding to them.

Bret

Thanks for the response. As you know potential and real value are 2 different things. If you believe there is real value why haven’t you been able to fund the development of the assay? As you know there are 10’s of thousands of ISSUED patents that are worthless. If you’re honest with yourself and your shareholders you’ll admit that you are unable to raise the funds to pay for it not to mention Nanologix no longer exists in Delaware since 2018 and you would significantly violate Delaware and Federal securities laws if you did. Although it is clear that you have no respect for the shareholders as you have not even advised them once over the last 18 months of anything you or the company may be doing to revive it. You’re actions or inactions border on criminal.

As you may know I have been in communication with certain shareholders who intend on joining me to bring an action against you, Jon, Sebastion Faro, etal and the company to seek an order that would require you, etal to conduct a shareholders meeting and to bar the sale or other agreement by you or Jon with respect to the technology until the court makes a determination of who owns the IP. However if you wish to schedule a meeting prior to our filing that would be sufficient at this point to satisfy our concerns. Although I can only speak for myself, a simple update from you about the current status of the company including its financial position and how you intend to resurrect it may suffice.



Thanks
Tom