To: scion who wrote (10941 ) 8/13/2007 1:02:46 PM From: scion Respond to of 12518 As of the date of filing, all three suits are pending, and counsel for PCI (the same law firm that represents Plasticon in this action) has made no effort to substitute Plasticon as a party plaintiff. If Plasticon is in fact the owner of the patents, it would appear that Plasticon is the real plaintiff party in interest. 32. Even more curious, on July 11, 2006, the same law firm representing Plasticon in this case filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on behalf of “International Plastics Corp., a division of Wickland [sic] Holding Company, a Delaware Corporation, presently known as Plasticon International, Inc.” against a number of defendants alleging breach of contract, civil conspiracy, conversion, interference with contractual relations, and misrepresentation and fraud concerning certain molds and associated tools and parts used in the processing and manufacturing of injected molded plastic parts for rebar supports. International Plastics Corp. v. Michael, et al, 5:06-cv-00223-KSF. This suit was dismissed but later refiled in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, with Turek added as a party plaintiff and the addition of another defendant. Turek, et al v. Mold-Rite Tool, et al, 2:07-cv-10162-CGS-DAS. Once again, if Plasticon is the owner of the patents, it is the real plaintiff party in interest. 33. No public filing by Plasticon indicates how International Plastics Corporation became a “division” of Plasticon, although a January 10, 1997 press release indicates that Wicklund Holding Company acquired IPC in a reverse acquisition. Exhibit 15, attached hereto and incorporated herein. Extract from - MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR APPOINTMENT OF A CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE Doc 156