"IMO, VERY BAD NEWS ON THE LEGAL SIDE FOR TRIM...."
To: 2MAR$ who wrote (24)
From: Francois Goelo Friday, Jan 21, 2000 9:05 PM ET
Reply # of 33
IMO, VERY BAD NEWS ON THE LEGAL SIDE FOR TRIM....
to which my own LAWSUIT will soon be added as MUZIO, the CEO REFUSES to deliver the TRIM shares I had bought in mid-October 1999 OR return the cash paid to the tune $77,000.00... Full details of the SUIT soon to be posted... Excerpts from TRIM's 10SB...
ITEM 2. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Product Liability.
Three lawsuits have been filed against us in connection with the sale of
Revivarant, a product containing the chemical GBL which has been determined by
the Food and Drug Administration to be unsafe for human consumption. In an
action filed in the District Court of the Fourth District of Idaho on June 7,
1999 (Case No. CV PI 9900250D; Jensen v. Body Life Sciences, Inc. & Trimfast
Group, Inc. ), in an action filed in the Circuit Court for Harrison County,
Mississippi on June 14, 1999 (Peck v. Trimfast Group, Inc.) and in a separate
action filed in the Circuit Court of Tennessee for the Thirteenth Judicial
District at Memphis on April 5, 1999 (Case No. 301672-5TD; Cliffton v. Body Life
Sciences, Inc., seeking $400,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in
punitive damages), the consumer of the product alleges serious harm from the
consumption of Revivarant. In each case the consumer seeks compensatory and
punitive damages totaling millions of dollars in damages in aggregate. We have
retained counsel to represent our interests in these claims. We have not had a
sufficient period of time to investigate the merits of these claims.
We have received notice indicating that three other parties have hired counsel
in connection with potential product liability claims arising from the use of
Revivarant. This substance was sold throughout the United States in health
stores. Pursuant to a voluntary agreement with the Food and Drug Administration,
we have removed this product from sale. All of the aforementioned claims have
been submitted to Royal Insurance Company. At the time that the alleged causes
of action arose, we had no product liability insurance. We have since obtained a
policy with an effective date of May 27, 1999. Our product liability insurance
will not be available to cover these claims, should we be found liable. As such,
our business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely
affected, if we are found liable for these claims.
Since our product liability insurance only became effective on May 27, 1999, we
have no insurance coverage for the above mentioned claims or for future claims
relating to the sale of Revivarant. Further, we have insufficient assets
available to pay any such product liability claims. Any judgment or claim in
favor of the Claimant could have a materially adverse effect our operations.
We are presently engaged in various legal actions, although ultimate liability
for such other actions cannot be determined at the present time. As a result,
our business could be adversely affected.
Intellectual Property.
In June of 1999, we received a written communication from counsel for Slimfast
Foods Company including a demand to cease and desist use of the TrimFast name.
To date, no litigation has been filed
in this matter, and management feels confident that our registration of the name
with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office as well as the State of Florida will
be sufficient to defend this usage. We believe that there is no confusion
between the TrimFast and Slimfast in the marketplace, and the matter has been
referred to outside counsel for an opinion on this matter. Should Slimfast Foods
Company file suit in this matter and a judgment be rendered against us, it could
have a material adverse effect on our business and operations.
Breach of Contract.
Phillips Pharmatech Labs filed suit against us (County Court Pinellas 99-004791;
Phillips Pharmatech Labs v. Body Life Sciences, Inc.) seeking damages in the
amount of $14,000 in outstanding invoices for prior products not delivered. We
have not had the opportunity to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable
outcome in this suit, but plan to vigorously defend this action. Should a
judgment be granted against us, the amount should not exceed the damages
claimed.
On June 14, 1999, a suit was filed against us for breach of contract (Case No.
99-8611CC; L.and N. Label Company, Inc. v. Trimfast, Inc.) claiming damages in
the amount of approximately $10,500.00 as a result of labels being produced for
us. We have not had the opportunity to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable
outcome in this suit, but plan to vigorously defend this action. Should a
judgment be granted against us, the amount should not exceed the damages
claimed.
On April 21, 1999, a suit was filed against us for breach of contract (Case No.
99-5117CC; Graffitti Graphics Corporation v. Trimfast, Inc.) claiming damages in
the amount of approximately $5,500.00. We have not had the opportunity to
evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome in this suit, but plan to
vigorously defend this action. Should a judgment be granted against us, the
amount should not exceed the damages claimed.
On June 1, 1999, a suit was filed against us for breach of contract (Supreme
Court of New Jersey Docket # BER-L-4756-99; Kingchem, Inc. v. TrimFast Group,
Inc.) claiming damages in the amount of approximately $35,000.00. Currently,
management is trying to resolve this dispute by making payments over time.
Should a judgment be granted against us, the amount should not exceed the
damages claimed. |
