Looks like the Australian and Canadian partners are not happy at all. Some real juicy stuff: a worthless stem cell extraction process that doesn't process viable live cells, accusations of negligence and fraud, etc. etc. Wow, more bad news for Dr. LookGood
Simple Deadbeat Australians that don't want to pay for patented property. You think they know more then Andrews. Simple case of a deadbeat not wanting to pay. Put IR up to stealing it and that didn't work so now another desperation move.
On March 17, 2014, Dean E. Miller, as representative shareholder, on behalf of the nominal defendant Intellicell Biosciences, Inc., filed a shareholder’s derivative action against Steven Victor, MD, in his capacity as Chairman - CEO and individually, Anna Rhodes as former Executive Vice President and individually, Leonard L. Mazur as interim Chief Operating Officer and individually, Myron Holubiak as a Director and individually, Michael Hershman, as Chairman of the Board of Directors and individually, Stuart Goldfarb as a former Director and individually, Victor Dermatology & Rejuvenation, P.C., Victor Cosmeceuticals, Inc., Lasersculpt, Inc., and the Doe Entities 1-5, as defendants, and Intellicell Biosciences, Inc., as nominal-defendant. The complaint, which was filed on the aforementioned date with the United States District Court Southern District of New York, alleges that the Company has failed to comply with US Food and Drug Administration and United States Patent and Trade Office regulations. The allegations in the complaint include, but are not limited to, allegations involving fraud, negligence, false reporting, and mismanagement of laboratory facilities. Pursuant to the complaint, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Furthermore, the complaint as filed lists the following counts: 1. Against the individual defendants for breach of their fiduciary duties in connection with their management of the Company; 2. Against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with disseminating false information; 3. Against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty for failing to design and implement adequate internal controls; 4. Request for injunctive relief; 5. Imposition of constructive trust/accounting; and 6. Appointment of referee injunctive relief. The Company believes that such allegations and claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend such allegations and claims. Because the inquiry is in its initial stages, the Company is not currently able to predict the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome, or the amount of any possible loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome. Consequently, no material provision or liability has been recorded for such allegations and claims as of December 31, 2013. However, management is confident in its defenses to such allegations and claims.
Oh, its much more than that surfy, much more. Go have a look for yourself. Hey, didn't you say that were at the April 11 court date? And that you were going to give us updates? PLEASE, tell us what happened, won't you? Pretty please?