EXHIBIT “A” 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION 

INVESTORSHUB.COM, INC., a 

Florida corporation, MATTHEW BROWN, 

an individual, and ROBERT ZUMBRUNNEN, 

an individual, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

MINA MAR GROUP, INC., a foreign 

corporation, MINA MAR GROUP INC. (OF 

THE USA), n/k/a, EMRY CAPITAL GROUP, 

INC., a foreign corporation, and MIRO 

ZECEVIC, an individual, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/ 

Case No.: 4:11cv9-RH/WS 

STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT 

Plaintiffs INVESTORSHUB.COM, INC., MATTHEW BROWN, and ROBERT 

ZUMBRUNNEN (collectively, the “InvestorsHub Parties”), and Defendants MINA MAR 

GROUP, INC., MINA MAR GROUP INC. (OF THE USA), n/k/a EMERY CAPITAL GROUP, 

INC., and MIRO ZECEVIC (collectively, the “Mina Mar Parties”), have stipulated to the entry 

of Final Judgment in this matter. Based upon the Stipulated Motion for Final Judgment, the 

pleadings and other papers filed with the Court, the Court finds and determines as follows: 

Parties and Jurisdiction 

1. Plaintiff InvestorsHub.com, Inc. is a Florida corporation having its principal place 

of business in Tallahassee, Florida. 

2. Plaintiff Brown resides in Florida. 

3. Plaintiff Zumbrunnen resides in Missouri. 

Case 4:11-cv-00009-RH-WCS Document 17-1 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 6
2

4. Defendant Mina Mar Group, Inc. is a Canadian corporation having its principal 

place of business in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. 

5. Defendant Mina Mar Group, Inc. (of the USA), now known as Emry Capital 

Group, Inc., is a Texas corporation having its principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, 

Florida. 

6. Defendant Miro Zecevic resides in Ontario, Canada. 

7. The Mina Mar Defendants have answered the Complaint and the Court has 

personal jurisdiction over them. 

8. The Complaint raises claims under the Securing the Protection of our Enduring 

and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (the “SPEECH Act”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 4101-4105, and 

the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202. This Court has subject-matter 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, 2201-2202. 

The Canadian Defamation Judgment 

9. In a complaint filed in the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada, on or about 

October 17, 2008, and amended on or about August 19, 2009, the Mina Mar Parties sued the 

InvestorsHub Parties for defamation. 

10. That matter was titled Mina Mar Group, Inc., Mina Mar Group Inc. (of the USA), 

and Miro Zecevic v. Investorshub.com, Inc., Matt Brown, Robert Zumbrunnen, and ADVFN 

PLC, and Stratey, itlogic, Jim Bishop, Janice Shell, Universal Trader, Ratso, Livingstyle, 

Soyelpato, AccipiterO, strongtower, snow, peraire, and Fast Flyer 03, Strongtower, 1summer, 

AccipiterO, bob41, Buckley, soyelpato, greedy malone, rolltide and John Doe (collectively 

known as the Posters), Court File No. CV-08-364413-0000, Ontario Superior Court of Justice 

(hereinafter, the “Canadian Defamation Lawsuit”). 

Case 4:11-cv-00009-RH-WCS Document 17-1 Filed 06/15/11 Page 2 of 6
3

11. In the Canadian Defamation Lawsuit, the Mina Mar Parties obtained a default 

final judgment against the InvestorsHub Parties, holding them liable for libel and defamation 

and, among other things, ordering them to pay $75,000 (CAD) in general damages and $10,000 

(CAD) in punitive damages, ordering them to disclose the names and addresses of certain 

individuals who posted statements on InvestorsHub.com’s website, and enjoining them from 

posting defamatory statements about the Mina Mar Parties. The Mina Mar Parties also obtained 

a costs order requiring the InvestorsHub Parties to pay $13,650 (CAD), which they have filed in 

the records of Leon County Florida. (Dkt. 1 (Exh. A).) (Collectively, the “Foreign Defamation 

Judgment.”)

12. The Foreign Defamation Judgment was based upon the content of writing that 

was published on the InvestorsHub.com website, which is based in the United States. 

This Lawsuit 

13. On or about January 7, 2011, the InvestorsHub Parties filed their Complaint in 

this lawsuit. Count I of the Complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the Foreign Defamation 

Judgment violates the federal SPEECH ACT, 28 U.S.C. §§ 4101-4105, and cannot be enforced 

in the United States. Count II seeks a declaratory judgment that the Foreign Defamation 

Judgment violates Florida’s Uniform Out-of-Country Foreign Money-Judgment Recognition 

Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 55.601 – 55.607, and cannot be enforced in Florida. 

14. The Mina Mar Parties now acknowledge that the Foreign Defamation Judgment is 

not enforceable in the United States and are agreeable to the entry of a final judgment in favor of 

the InvestorsHub Parties on both Counts of the Complaint. 

15. Federal law permits entry of a consent judgment that would be fair, adequate, and 

reasonable, and that is not the product of collusion between the parties. See Florida Wildlife 

Case 4:11-cv-00009-RH-WCS Document 17-1 Filed 06/15/11 Page 3 of 6
4

Federation, Inc. v. Jackson, 2009 WL 5217062, *3 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2009). In addition, the 

consent judgment should not violate the Constitution, statutes, or governing law. Id. And, the 

consent judgment should be consistent with the purposes of the relevant statute. Id. 

16. The Court finds that entry of a final judgment in favor of the InvestorsHub Parties 

is appropriate, because that proposed would be fair, adequate, and reasonable, and is not the 

product of collusion between the parties. 

17. Entry of final judgment is proper in this matter because it would not violate the 

Constitution, statutes, or governing law. Id. 

18. Entry of final judgment would be consistent with the statutory purposes of the 

SPEECH Act and the Florida Uniform Out-of-Country Foreign Money-Judgment Recognition 

Act. Those statutes seek to preclude enforcement in the United States of foreign defamation 

judgments based upon foreign laws that provide less protection for freedom of speech than the 

U.S. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 4102, 4104. 

19. The parties acknowledge, and the Court finds, that Canadian law does not provide 

as much protection of speech as the First Amendment, federal law, and Florida law. For 

example, the First Amendment requires that a defamation plaintiff who is either a public official 

or public figure must prove that the defendant made the defamatory statement with actual malice, 

meaning that the defendant either knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard 

to the statement’s truth or falsity. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); 

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967). The Canadian Supreme Court has 

specifically refused to adopt the Sullivan actual malice standards for Canadian defamation 

actions. See Hill v. Church of Scientology, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130 (Can.) (stating that Court will 

not adopt Sullivan standard in Canada). See also Grant v. Torstar Corp., [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640 

Case 4:11-cv-00009-RH-WCS Document 17-1 Filed 06/15/11 Page 4 of 6
5

(Can.) (modifying Canadian defamation law while still rejecting First Amendment standards); 

Rodney A. Smolla, Law of Defamation § 1:9.75, at 1-17 – 1-29 (describing differences between 

United States law and “the more plaintiff-friendly” Canadian defamation law). 

20. Nor does Canadian law provide the protections for freedom of on-line speech 

provided by the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230. 

21. In addition, the InvestorsHub Parties and the Mina Mar Parties are the only parties 

whose rights would be affected by the final judgment and both the InvestorsHub Parties and the 

Mina Mar Parties consent to entry of this Final Judgment. As such, entry of final judgment in 

favor of the InvestorsHub Parties is appropriate. See Florida Wildlife Federation, 2009 WL 

5217062, at *3. 

Final Declaratory Judgment 

22. The Court hereby declares that the Foreign Defamation Judgment in the matter of 

Mina Mar Group, Inc., et al. v. Investorshub.com, et al., Court File No. CV-08-364413-0000, 

Ontario Superior Court of Justice, is not enforceable in the United States pursuant to the 

SPEECH Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 4101-4105, and any orders entered in connection therewith are 

invalid and unenforceable in the United States. 

23. The Court declares that the Foreign Defamation Judgment in the matter of Mina 

Mar Group, Inc., et al. v. Investorshub.com, et al., Court File No. CV-08-364413-0000, Ontario 

Superior Court of Justice, is not enforceable in the United States pursuant to Florida’s Uniform 

Out-of-country Foreign Money-Judgment Recognition Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 55.601 – 55.607, and 

any orders entered in connection therewith are invalid and unenforceable in Florida. 

24. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

25. All relief not expressly granted herein is denied. 

Case 4:11-cv-00009-RH-WCS Document 17-1 Filed 06/15/11 Page 5 of 6
6

IT IS SO ORDERED, dated ___________________, 2011. 

__________________ 

Robert L. Hinkle 

United Stated District Judge 

 

Case 4:11-cv-00009-RH-WCS Document 17-1 Filed 06/15/11 Page 6 of 6