"Thereby"?? Why these things should exclude each other? We already knew that JMC was owned by “an individual or entity formed in the United Kingdom”, not necessarily a corporation. Much ado about nothing....
RBO,
Here is the whole comment from the court documents:
"Rossi (Leonardo), and Johnson, both in his individual capacity and as the
representative of JMP, traveled to North Carolina in August 2014 to meet with individuals from Industrial Heat. During this meeting, Rossi and Johnson made a number of false representations to Industrial Heat, most notably that JMP (at the time called J.M. Chemical Products, Inc.) was a confidential subsidiary of Johnson Matthey p.l.c. (“Johnson Matthey”), and that Johnson Matthey was interested in using the E-Cat technology in connection with a confidential manufacturing process it wanted to operate in Florida. In fact, in August 2014 Johnson on behalf of JMP even warranted in writing that JMP “[was] owned by an entity formed in the United Kingdom, and none of Leonardo, Dr. Andrea Rossi, Henry W. Johnson nor any of their respective subsidiaries, directors, officers, agents, employees, affiliates, significant others, or relatives by blood or marriage [had] any ownership interest” in JMP. See Compl. Ex. B. (lastpage of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit). JMP, however, has never been a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey, was not operating or planning to operate any manufacturing process in Florida, and was in fact owned by persons whom Johnson represented in writing did not have any ownership interest in JMP."
From this we can see that Rossi/Johnson told IH, albeit orally, in a meeting that this "entity" was a "subsidiary of Johnson Matthey p.l.c.". Rossi already admitted on his JONP that Johnson Matthey had nothing to do with this, although he claims to have bought some things from them. If this were not enough to have the case tossed....
Rossi claimed in his "pitch"/appeal to IH to transfer the 1MW to Doral -instead of "your (IH) proposal to put the plant in a factory owned by yourself...is dramatically less convincing", that the customer was of the "chemical industry", a "real customer", and they would use the steam to "process their chemical products".
Even if Rossi/Johnson can argue their way out of what they told IH orally in NC, they then have to prove what they put in writing, that some "entity...formed in the UK", actually exists, that is a real chemical company, with a legitimate product, and used the steam for production, or they lied. If they cannot prove so, then the case will be tossed.
Also, Rossi said he would use Doral to "get the authorizations for the next plants". If he did not, and we know he did not, he lied and the case will be tossed.
Rossi is also on the record saying he would get "the authorization from the Florida State Control Office" (interesting he would offer this, but that is another story) before starting the 2 year operation. If he did not get that, which he almost definitely did not, he lied, yet again.
Just one lie to a partner discovered after a contract is agreed upon, will invalidate that contract. How many do we have so far? So does anyone still think Rossi/Johnson has a hand to play, and if yes, can his showing it prove all he is on record as saying?