UNITED
STATES
SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington,
D.C. 20549
FORM
8-K
CURRENT
REPORT
Pursuant
to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Date
of
Report (Date of earliest event reported) May
3, 2007
SKYE
INTERNATIONAL, INC.
(Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
Nevada
|
000-27549
|
88-0362112
|
|
(State
or other jurisdiction of incorporation)
|
(Commission
File Number)
|
(IRS
Employer Identifica-tion No.)
|
7701
E. Gray Rd., Suite 4 Scottsdale AZ 85260
(Address
of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
Registrant’s
telephone number, including area code (480)
993-2300
7650
E. Evans Rd., Suite C Scottsdale Arizona 85260
(Former
name or former address, if changed since last report)
Check
the
appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously
satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following
provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):
o
Written
communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
o
Soliciting
material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
o
Pre-commencement
communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14d-2(b))
o
Pre-commencement
communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.13e-4(c))
1
ITEM
8.01 OTHER EVENTS
On
May 2,
2007, Judge Roslyn O. Silver of the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona issued an Order rejecting the Plaintiffs’ requested
Preliminary Injunction relief in the pending Skye Shareholder’s Derivative
Lawsuit, Stebbins
v. Johnson, Civil
Action No. 06-1291-PHX-ROS. The Court also dissolved all restrictions imposed
by
a prior Temporary Restraining Order and Stipulated Order, which frees the
Company to conduct its corporate business without any further interference
or
restraint by the Court or the Stebbins Plaintiffs.
“This
Order is an excellent development for the Company,” says Perry Logan, Skye’s
President and CEO, “and now that the Company is freed from the prior
restrictions, we anticipate holding a shareholder meeting in the near future.”
According to Mr. Logan, “the Plaintiffs’ claims have unnecessarily cost the
Company in lost time and opportunities, and the Company has had to expend a
tremendous amount of money in attorney fees to fight these frivolous claims.”
Mr. Logan also indicated that the Company would be pursuing reimbursement for
those losses in the form of Counterclaim damages.
The
Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit was filed in May 2006 by four stockholders and
the principal Plaintiffs Jeffrey M. Stebbins and Corbin Jones, two Arizona-based
stockbrokers. In their lawsuit, Messrs. Stebbins and Jones made numerous
allegations complaining about the actions of the Company, including serious
allegations that the Company had engaged in acts of fraud and corporate waste
by
issuing shares of Skye stock to Company consultants. In the May 2, 2007 Order,
the District of Arizona found that none of the Stebbins Plaintiffs’ arguments
were convincing, the Stebbins Plaintiffs failed to present any evidence that
would support a finding of corporate fraud or waste, and the Stebbins Plaintiffs
had made no showing of likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.
During
a
ten month investigation into the matter following the filing of the lawsuit,
the
Company and its counsel determined that there was no merit to the claims made
by
Stebbins Plaintiffs. After reporting the results of this investigation to the
Board of Directors, the Company’s Board of Directors took affirmative actions to
ratify the Company’s prior actions. After hearing the testimony from five of the
Board of Directors and other Skye personnel and consultants at the Preliminary
Injunction Hearing on February 21-22, 2007, the District of Arizona accepted
the
ratification actions of the Skye Board of Directors, which were based on the
Board’s reasonable investigation.
As
a
summary of the case, the District of Arizona found that a vast majority of
the
Stebbins Plaintiffs’ complaint has been rendered moot. Based on the Court’s May
2, 2007 rulings, Judge Silver stated “it is not clear that Plaintiffs have any
viable claims remaining” in this case. The District of Arizona also ruled on
other matters, including a ruling that the prior Answer and Counterclaim filed
by Skye did not comply with the proper form of such a pleading under Rule 8
of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court gave the Company until May
14,
2007 to file an Amended Answer and Counterclaim, which the Company is currently
preparing and anticipates filing prior to that deadline so as to recover its
Counterclaim damages.
2
Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant
has
duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto
duly authorized.
| SKYE INTERNATIONAL, INC | ||
| |
|
|
| Date: May 7, 2007 | By: | /s/ PERRY LOGAN |
|
Perry Logan |
||
| Title President | ||
3