Brady, Exhibit 2.10 does not, as you state, say "plainly state that litigation is pending." It says as follows: "Except as set forth on Exhibit 2.10, as of the date of this Agreement, there is no litigation or proceedings pending or, to the best of the knowledge of ZULU-tek's stockholders and ZULU-tek's directors and officers, threatened against ZULU-tek or any of its assets or properties."
1) How do you know they're not commenting on the lawsuit of the ex-simmers against Softbank Holding Company? Now, this giant of a company happens to own a percentage of ZuluMedia. You don't know this, so it's does not "plainly state" anything.
2) How the term "proceedings" in the text. Perhaps Zulu-tek is aware the "ex-simmers" have threatened a lawsuit. This could be a description of an anticipated lawsuit, not one that's actually been filed. It would be prudent for them to speak of this, but since it hasn't happened why is it prudent for them to speak as if it is going to occur. It might not.
So you're wrong. You can't use a document which no one has the ability to read or understand to support your claim.
Everybody likes ya, Brady. I like you. Always did. Your attitude and sense of humor have carried me through many a rough times with this Zulu investment. But I'm not going to let your wrongful remark stand. You were "plainly" wrong.
You can't have an explanation of convenience, i.e., the Colvin defense others offered for you, justify your remark. They make a mistake defending you this way, becuase you were "plainly" writing in the plural, not the singular, when you made your disparaging remarks. Bob Colvin, a single individual, has a contact termination dispute in the court and he's suing the "ex-simmers" and Zulu-tek. There's a big difference. For example, how can the "ex-simmers" sue themselves for fraud? Try answering it that way, buddy! |
