LAS VEGAS—Tuesday, Nevada state judge Elizabeth Gonzalez issued a ruling favorable to select defendants in Consipio v Private, the lawsuit that remains somewhat in limbo as the court awaits information regarding the vote taken at the annual Private shareholder meeting in November that was supposed to decide the makeup of the company’s Board of Directors, which was expanded from six to seven members in February in order to comply with NASDAQ requirements regarding the requisite number of independent members.
Gonzalez in January declined to certify the inspector of elections final report, which was delivered to Private on Dec. 16, until the disposition of allegedly missing Consipio shares is determined from information derived from subpoenas issued by the court.
Tuesday, however, Gonzalez granted a motion by defendants opposing an attempt by the plaintiffs to attach members of the Private Board of Directors to the lawsuit, and dismissed a counter motion by the plaintiffs seeking to prevent the dismissal.
"We are pleased to announce that on March 8, 2011 in Clark County Court in Las Vegas, Nevada, in the case of Consipio Holding BV et al v. Private Media Group, Inc., et al, a motion made by the defendants to dismiss officers and directors of Private was granted by the court,” said Milton, in a prepared statement. “In addition, plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss; and countermotion for reconsideration of a previous order granting another director's motion to dismiss were denied by the court.
“This is the first in a series of strong company momentum news we look forward to sharing with you in the coming months as we roll out our 2011 business strategy and vision,” Milton added.
The plaintiffs in the case issued the following clarification to AVN:
“On March 8, 2011, a motion made by the defendants to dismiss certain select officers and directors of Private, not including Berth Milton, from our action was granted by the court," the statement read. "Despite this ruling, which is subject to appeal, Private remains and will continue to remain a defendant, and the subject of a preliminary injunction; and Berth Milton remains and will continue to remain, a defendant subject to the same injunction. While we expect that an appeals process will ultimately determine that it is proper for these officers and directors to remain defendants in this case, in the interim the preliminary injunction prohibits all directors, officers and agents of Private and its subsidiaries from any actions that would further disenfranchise the public shareholders and creditors of Private in favor of management insiders.”
