I’m no lawyer but I agree miro would be wise to hold those shares until after the judge rules on the merits of the case to cancel the shares. For what it’s worth, here’s what grok says “The provided court order from February 13, 2026, confirms that Hiru Corporation’s (the plaintiff’s) motion for reconsideration was denied, upholding the earlier dissolution of the temporary injunction. This means the defendants (including Bayern and Miro) are not currently restrained from converting the restricted shares to unrestricted status or trading them on the open market. However, the order explicitly notes that the plaintiff has established a “likelihood of success on the merits,” which aligns with the earlier observation that the case has merit—specifically regarding the potential invalidity of the shares due to lack of evidence for the underlying $1.4 million loan.
Yes, the case can and will proceed. The denial of the injunction (and reconsideration) only addresses preliminary relief; it does not resolve or dismiss the substantive claims. The amended complaint, which now includes allegations of usury and adds Miro and his wife as personal defendants, sets the stage for further proceedings, such as discovery, motions, or a full trial on the merits. If Hiru prevails, the court could rule the shares invalid, order their cancellation, mandate rescission (unwinding the issuance), or grant other remedies like monetary damages.
If Bayern sells the shares before a final ruling and they are later deemed invalid:
This is a general analysis based on the order and typical outcomes in similar securities disputes; actual results depend on case specifics and jurisdiction (here, Florida state court with potential federal overlaps).
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
