Replies to post #84566 on Hiru Corporation (HIRU)

[satter]

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.

The court ruled and denied the motion for reconsideration so the injunction is not in place. Miro can trade. A new amended complaint was filed by Hiru. Miro and his wife were personally added as defendants on it.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court for review on February 13, 2026. Based upon review
of the Motion for Reconsideration, a complete review of the court file, and the Court being
otherwise fully advised in the premise, the Court finds as follows:

1. This matter initially came before the Court for an ex parte request for temporary
preliminary injunction. The Court found the Petition sufficient and granted the ex parte
temporary injunction.

2. Defendant timely moved to dissolve the injunction and after conducting a preliminary
hearing and by agreement of the parties, the Court set a full evidentiary hearing.

3. Following the hearing, the parties submitted proposed orders. The Court determined that
they both raised issues not addressed at the hearing and entered its own order. The Court’s
Order found that Plaintiff had established a likelihood of success on the merits, but failed to
meet the elements of irreparable harm, inadequate remedy at law, and service of the public
good.

4. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration raising issues of usury, which had been included
in the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff. The Court set the matter for hearing. Prior to
the hearing, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, alleging usury and including additional
defendants.

5. At the hearing on the motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argued that the state of Florida
law trails federal case law concerning injunctions in regard to usurious contracts.

6. The Court recognizes that facts upon which one might be able to conclude that the
purported loan agreement was usurious were elicited at the hearing. However, the issue of
usuriousness was not raised prior to or at the hearing. Ruling on that basis after the
evidentiary hearing would likely violate Defendant’s due process rights where it was not on
notice of the claim and, therefore, not given the opportunity to present evidence to rebut the
contention.

7. It also seems self-evident that publicly traded stocks affect parties beyond those directly
involved in the litigation and that allowing allegedly fraudulently procured shares to enter
the market would cause irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law, such that
preventing their dissemination would favor the public good. However, Plaintiff has not
identified any case law that establishes a per se satisfaction of those injunction elements in
matters regarding the sale of stock.

8. This Court is bound by the legion of case law establishing the elements that must
necessarily be met to obtain a temporary injunction. See Miller v. State, 980 So. 2d 1092,
1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“[B]ecause the district courts of appeal in Florida are intended to
be courts of final appellate jurisdiction, the opinion of a district court is binding on all trial
courts in the state.”).

9. If such an exception is to be made, it cannot be done by this Court.

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida.