Did IH actually get paid by JMP for power?
We have seen strange-looking requests from JMP in discrete, large increments to be invoiced for power, but so far we have not seen evidence for an invoice sent from IH, or any other indication of IH having been paid for the power reported to have been received by the Customer.
From the complaint:
22. Upon information and belief, Defendants IH and IPH have derived substantial revenue from the operations conducted in Miami, Florida, involving the leasing of the very technology and intellectual property that is at the heart of this Complaint to customer(s) within this District.
However, from the Amended Answer:
22. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 22
77. JMP’s role in the scheme magnified when JMP started sending falsified invoices to Industrial Heat stating the amount of energy or steam JMP was purportedly receiving and using from the Plant during a given month. A selection of the invoices is attached hereto as Exhibit 18.
I find nothing in the documents that actually states those "invoices" -- which were not invoices, they were invoice requests or reports of power to be invoiced --were paid. Were I IH, I would have invoiced them as requested. IH here terms the "invoices" as "falsified." I would disagree. They were issued based on information and belief, based on reports from Rossi, I'm sure, as to how many 250 kW "Tigers" were operating. If the statements were false, this would be an issue between Rossi and JMP. If the Rossi numbers were found to be false, JMP could request a refund if they had paid.
JMP had elected to trust Rossi's reports of power delivered. This wasn't fraudulent on the part of JMP, unless JMP knew that this was part of a fraudulent scheme. What I suspect is that JMP knew there was no chemical plant, but Rossi said, "I'm willing to cover the cost of the power, so no problem."
However, we don't know that IH actually invoiced and was paid. Paragraph 22 of the Complaint implies that they were paid. IH has denied that paragraph, but this doesn't necessarily tell us the truth behind it. For example, "derived substantial revenue." Those payments may have been mostly covering IH expenses, we know of $10,500 per month for Fabiani. There would be Barry West and Penon and expenses. Paragraph 22 was part of an argument asserting Florida jurisdiction. IH did not challenge the lawsuit based on lack of jurisdiction. If they had not received payments, that would have been a possibility, though there were other possible ways that jurisdiction would still exist.