carjac, saying that the 'ditribution' agreement was terminated on Mar 6, 2009 is ok, however this clause reamins in effect, "two years after its effective termination"
We can argue this point from now until such time as the court rules, will make no difference whatsoever. I think serious investors are interested in knowing as many facts as possible. To suggest to them this requirement is 'null and void' is disinformation until the court says so and that remains to nbe seen. Dog, keeping facts straight and on top of the heap
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
