#Shawne Merriman #Lights Out #Applied Real Intelligence

Legal Battle Unfolds: Shawne Merriman's Lights Out® Enterprises Takes On Applied Real Intelligence

Legal Showdown: A Tale of Control and Ownership

Introduction

In the ever-evolving corporate world, disputes over control and governance can lead to significant legal battles. The recent case involving Shawne Merriman's Lights Out® Enterprises and Applied Real Intelligence (A.R.I.) illustrates such complexities. This article delves into the details surrounding the lawsuit, the claims made by Merriman's enterprise, and the broader implications for corporate governance.

Background of the Case

On February 13, 2026, Lights Out® Enterprises, led by former NFL player Shawne Merriman, filed a lawsuit in Clark County, Nevada. The company seeks a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop A.R.I. and its managing partner, Zack Ellison, from what they describe as unauthorized control tactics. The crux of the complaint argues that A.R.I. attempted to assert management rights over Lights Out® without following proper legal protocols, namely completing a lawful foreclosure process.

The Allegations

The Complaint states the following key points:

- A.R.I. allegedly tried to displace Merriman as the CEO and Director, citing a recent default on loan interest payments.
- Merriman claims that the actions by A.R.I. not only lack legitimacy but were also “unconscionable,” as they appeared to be an effort to undermine the established management structure of the company.
- The lawsuit also reveals that discussions about management authority leveraged the proxy provisions in the loan agreement, which were originally intended to safeguard the company's collateral and not to grant governance rights.

The Ongoing Dispute

This lawsuit follows earlier communications regarding a loan made by A.R.I. to Lights Out® Enterprises, which Merriman’s company attempted to repay. Disagreements over these repayments led A.R.I. to claim they had grounds to take over the company, an assertion that Merriman vehemently contests. The Complaint emphasizes that the alleged default does not justify A.R.I.'s actions to assume control.