Shouldn't the onus be on MAXD to support their claims, instead of the onus on some random internet stranger to debunk their claim?
If investors are putting money into a company based only on vague press releases, without any proof or any independent verification, then it's impossible to have sympathy for them. They were destined to lose their money to a scamster sooner or later.
To humour your question: The premise of MP3 encoding is that inaudible tones are discarded to make the file size smaller. It ought to be impossible to "restore" those discarded tones because there is no way for the decoder to know what those discarded tones were.
An analogy: imagine you are reading a court transcript. Even the most talented impressionist in the world cannot accurately reproduce the voices just from that transcript, because the timbre, volume, accent, or speed at which the words were spoken were never written down.
Furthermore, Nash claims Trammel's skills or patents were related to analog audio and not digital. The patent of his I viewed was definitely an analog patent. They may be marketing a different patent than I viewed... but more likely, they are simply making nonsense claims.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
