Replies to post #84554 on Hiru Corporation (HIRU)

[satter]

The motion seeking emergency request for temporary injunction was granted on Jan 8th/2026.

THIS CAUSE came before the Court for review on January 08, 2026

It is, therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Verified Petition for emergency preliminary injunction is GRANTED.

2. Empire Stock Transfer, Inc. SHALL maintain all existing restrictions and stops on the
Bayern – and GB-II related HIRU shares, including 290,000,000 shares registered to Bayern
and the 90,000,000 shares attirbuted to or held for GB II. Empire SHALL NOT remove
restrictive legends, issue replacement certificates, or otherwise enable trading or transfer of
such shares pending further order of this Court.

3. Bayern Industries, LLC and GB II Partners, Inc., SHALL NOT directly or indirectly,
through their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, or any other person acting in
concert with them, request or direct Empire or any other transfer agent, broker or
intermediary to remove restrictive legends from, or to allow trades or transfers of, the
disputed shares pending further order of the Court.

4. Empire SHALL preserve all records, electronic paper, and all contact information relating
in any way to the issuance, transfer, registration, legend-removal requests, and any other
actions concerning Bayern and GB II shares, including those identified in HIRU’s
December 18, 2025 Freeze Letter.

5. This Order shall be effective immediately upon entry. Plaintiff shall immediately serve a
copy of this letter on all Defendants. Plaintiff shall post the $1,000 bond or pay $1,000 (and
necessary fees) into the Court registry by close of business on January 16, 2026. The failure
to pay the bond prior to that date will not impair the effectiveness of this Order.

6. Once service has been completed, the parties shall confer and contact the Court to set the
matter for a status conference.

However the defendants as expected contested it. There was a hearing on Jan 27th/2026.

The Court lifted the injunction inspite of finding Miro not credible and other things. Hiru has asked the court for reconsideration. The defendants have contested it. I have the both briefs that were submitted. Both are written well but I feel the injunction will remain lifted. Not because of being any fan of Miro, just because of asking the judge to basically admit he made a mistake in his ruling is a high bar to get a judge to do. However you never know in Court. If anyone wants to see the briefs let me know I will post them.

Here are highlights pertaining to Miro and Roxanne Greene.

2. At the hearing, Miro Z testified on behalf of Bayern. Based upon his demeanor, his
responses to questions and his evasiveness, the Court finds his testimony lacking in
credibility and rife with contradiction.

3. Zecevic’s wife was previously a secretary of HIRU at the time of the purported convertible
loan, and is currently an officer of Bayern. Zecevic has been involved with 200-300
businesses in the past 25 years. Zecevic’s relation to Bayern was unclear, but there was no
objection to him testifying on the entity’s behalf.

4. He testified that prior to current management, HIRU obtained a convertible loan from
Bayern for the benefit of itself and its related and subsidiary companies. Under the terms of
the purported Agreement, HIRU was given $1,400,000. In return, HIRU agreed upon
default to issuance of 380,000,000 shares in the company. Zecevic contended HIRU had
defaulted, and Bayern is entitled to issuance of its 380,000,000 shares.

5. Zecevic originally claimed during the hearing that the $1,400,000 was wired to HIRU on a
date specific and presented a purported wire transfer receipt. However, on crossexamination,
it was pointed out that the purported receipt (1) lacked a recipient account
number, (2) showed a wire was scheduled, not that one had been sent, (3) showed a “send
to” line rather than a “sent to” line, and generally did not tend to prove a transfer had
occurred.

6.Zecevic appeared to pivot his testimony to contend that the $1,400,000 was a line of credit
that had been disbursed in numerous payments over time to both HIRU and its related and
subsidiary entities. However, the proof on any such transfers was lacking.

7. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court asked counsel for Bayern to clarify whether the
testimony was inherently inconsistent or whether the Court misunderstood. To counsel’s
credit, counsel stated as an officer of the Court, he did not disagree with the Court’s
assessment.

8. The Court also heard testimony from Roxanna Green, the corporate Secretary for HIRU.
She testified that she had reviewed the corporate records and there was no evidence that
HIRU had received the claimed $1,400,000 either as a lump some disbursement or in a
series of payments over time. She also testified that as a regulated entity, such loans and
payments were required to and should have been documented in records and filings.

9. Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown a likelihood of success
on the merits that no such loan was transacted.

10. However, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction, a likelihood of success on the merits is
not enough. A trial court “must make ‘clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient findings’
supporting each of the required elements before entering an injunction.” Jouvence Ctr. for
Adv. Health, LLC v. Jouvence Rejuvenation Ctrs, LLC, 14 So. 3d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA
2009) (quoting Net First Nat’l Bank v. First Telebanc Corp., 834 So. 2d 944, 949 (Fla.
4th DCA 2003).

11. In the Verified Complaint for Emergency Preliminary Injunctive Relief, Petitioner satisfied
the irreparable harm and inadequate remedy at law prongs by averring that without an
injunction, 380,000,000 shares would be introduced into the market “causing a sharp
decline in share price, severe dilution of existing shareholders, disruption of pending and
prospective transactions and financings, and loss of investor confidence and
reputation.” Complaint, at ¶44. Likewise, the Verified Complaint relied upon blanket
assertions of harm to a “large body of public shareholders and prospective transaction
counterparties”. Id. at ¶47.

12. However, at the hearing, there was no testimony or evidence to substantiate these
conclusory assertions. On the contrary, the testimony established that there are currently 7
billion outstanding shares on the market, making the 380,000,000 shares only 5% of the
existing number of shares. There was no evidence how the introduction of such an increase
would affect the company or shareholders, let alone in a negative, irreparable manner.

13. Additionally, the evidence tended to show that the damages that would result were
ascertainable and adequately satisfied by a money judgment. Green testified that the
shares would be worth approximately $2,600,000 on the open market. Counsel for HIRU
indicated that the company may ultimately seek damages.

14. Finally, there was no evidence directly showing that an injunction would serve the public
interest.

15. Cognizant that “a temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, [and therefore] should
be granted sparingly,” the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet establish its
entitlement to a temporary injunction to maintain the status quo throughout the case. See
Hiles v. Auto Bahn Federation, Inc., 498 So. 2d 997, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Although
the Court found the Verified Complaint sufficient to initially enjoin the Defendants exparte
pending the opportunity for a full evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff failed to substantiate
its claims with testimony and evidence at the hearing.

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Dissolve Ex Parte Preliminary
Injunction is GRANTED. The temporary injunction is hereby DISSOLVED. The case shall
proceed in due course.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida.

I would like to see the defense rebuttal but Hiru has on its merits presented a strong position especially considering the Court has already found Miro not credible, with contradiction basically saying not truthful.