Additionally, here are the comments that Spencer posted to the AOL GRNO folder:
Subj: Comment: 10/22 Press Release
Date: 96-10-22 11:04:32 EDT
From: BFiore4054
All parties have agreed to withdraw their suits in a settlement agreement. The return and retirement of the 320,000 shares is a part of that settlement. Courts allow for refiling if terms of the settlement are not meant after one year. That is why the suit will not be fully dismissed for 1 year - to make sure all parties fullfill their part of the settlement. GRNO does not have any obligations to meet as their part of the settlement, except withdraw their countersuit, which they have done. LifeChoice SA and LifeChoice Int'l has to return 320,000 share of GRNO to complete their end of the settlement agreement.
A one year period between a settlement agreement and final dismissal is a basic and standard operating procedure in almost all lawsuits. It is most always done this way to allow all parties to fullfill their terms of the agreement, and leave a window for both sides if for one stupid reason or another, one party doesn't live up to the agreement. Again, it is a standard, no big deal, basic part of the civil litigation process, and nothing more should be read into that section of the release.
If anyone would like a copy on the 4 page updated (9/30/96) GRNO Corporate Profile and/or the 5 page "Summary of GRNO Press Releases" (thru 10/22/96), E-Mail me (BFiore@aol.com) or call me (847.266.2055), or fax me (847.266.2058) your name, address, fax number (if you prefer I fax it), and daytime phone # (optional).
Spencer
******************************************************
The was THE major lawsuit that GRNO faced. From what I had understood, the company was fairly confident that it eventually would be settled, but not on terms as favorable terms as these..
The plaintiff/defendant from "Lifesource" has had his 320,000 "frozen" for some time. Now they will eventually return to the company's treasury and be retired in a little over a year.
It is unlikely that the plaintiff will be able to reassert his case since it is rumoured that he is incarcerated in a European "facility" in relation to a "Ponzi" scheme he was involved in..... :0) It has been rumoured that this situation may "prejudice" any potential of the plaintiff reentering the case on the docket..... <g>
And from I've heard of the suit involving Environmental Oil Services of Nampa, ID, my opinion/impression is that there is a good chance for positive settlement. However, nothing is ever guaranteed, and I have just stated MY opinion.
Regards,
Ron |
