content: 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): July 19, 2006
  
  
                              SONEX RESEARCH, INC.
                (Exact name of registrant as specified in Charter)
  
  
           Maryland                  000-14465              52-1188993
        (State or other           (Commision file         (IRS employer
        jurisdiction of               number)           identification no.)
         incorporation)
  
  
                       23 Hudson Street, Annapolis, MD 21401
                      (Address of principal executive offices)
  
  
                                (410) 266-5556
               (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)
  
  
                                      N/A
           (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):
  
  [ ]  Written communications  pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act
       (17 CFR 230.425)
  [ ]  Soliciting  material  pursuant to Rule 14a-12  under the Exchange Act
       (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
  [ ]  Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the
       Exchange  Act (17 CFR  240.14d-2(b))
  [ ]  Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the
       Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
  
  
  
  
  
  
  ITEM 8.01 - OTHER EVENTS
  
  On July 19, 2006, the  Registrant  posted the following  announcement  on its
  website (www.sonexresearch.com):
  
  
  LITIGATION UPDATE
  
  
  ANNAPOLIS,  MARYLAND,  July 19, 2006 - SONEX RESEARCH, INC. (OTC SONX) announced
  that Global Equity Consultants,  Inc. ("GECI"), which in September 2005 filed an
  action for alleged non-delivery of stock pursuant to a consulting agreement, has
  filed  another  lawsuit  alleging  violations of Maryland  Corporation  Law with
  respect to  interested  director  transactions.  GECI has filed this action as a
  stockholder derivative complaint challenging the grant by Sonex in early 2005 of
  security  interests  in its  patents to its  officers  and  directors  to secure
  payment of compensation being deferred on an ongoing and future basis as well as
  new loans and other  financial  obligations.  GECI,  whose president is James A.
  Rose,  II of  Arnold,  Maryland,  claims  that the  transaction  "is  unfair and
  unreasonable" to Sonex. Three local  shareholders  previously filed a lawsuit in
  April  2005  challenging  the  grant  of  the  security  interests,   but  after
  court-ordered  mediation  in July 2005,  the matter was settled and  voluntarily
  dismissed by those  plaintiffs in March 2006. Thus, GECI now has filed virtually
  the same lawsuit that was previously voluntarily dismissed.
  
  Earlier  this year GECI  attempted  to amend its  September  2005 lawsuit to add
  these allegations as a Third Party Complaint  specifically against Dr. Andrew A.
  Pouring, Sonex Chairman of the Board, CEO and President, and George E. Ponticas,
  CFO, Secretary and director.  The Company responded on behalf of Dr. Pouring and
  Mr.  Ponticas by filing a Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss the Amended  Complaint
  and the Third Party  Complaint  because  the  stockholder  derivative  claim was
  completely unrelated to the underlying case regarding the consulting  agreement.
  On July 6,  2006,  the Court  granted  the  Company's  Motion  to Strike  and/or
  Dismiss.  Although the Company has yet to be served with the new  lawsuit,  GECI
  has since filed a Stockholder Derivative Complaint in the Circuit Court for Anne
  Arundel County, Maryland, against Dr. Pouring and Mr. Ponticas on its behalf and
  on behalf of all other  stockholders and Sonex,  alleging that the two directors
  unlawfully  created a security  interest  in their favor on the assets of Sonex.
  The  Stockholder  Derivative  Complaint  alleges that the security  interest was
  "procured by negligent  and/or  intentional  concealment of material  facts" and
  seeks  rescission of the  transaction.  The lawsuit also notes in support of the
  allegations that other  stockholders had brought a similar action,  but it fails
  to report that this action was voluntarily dismissed.
  
  Dr. Pouring and Mr.  Ponticas  believe that the  allegations in the  Stockholder
  Derivative  Complaint  are without merit and that the filing of the lawsuit does
  not serve the best  interests  of Sonex  stockholders  as implied by GECI in the
  Complaint.
  
  GECI's  Motion for  Summary  Judgment  against the Company in the first case was
  denied in April 2006,  meaning that case may proceed to trial  because there are
  facts in dispute.  While  discovery  is ongoing,  the case must be  concluded by
  March 2007 under the Court's time  standard  deadline.  Meanwhile,  a securities
  fraud action filed against Sonex in Federal  court in  Pennsylvania  in February
  2005  continues in litigation.  The court has before it the Company's  Motion to
  Dismiss on which it will rule without a hearing.  An overview of the  litigation
  activity during 2005 and 2006 is presented below.
  
  Sonex  management  believes  that the  allegations  in the  ongoing  actions are
  without merit and the Company will prevail in court. Dr. Pouring stated "I don't
  understand the motivation behind this latest lawsuit by Mr. Rose. Sonex has made
  significant  business  progress since the granting of the security  interests in
  early  2005,  particularly  the  announcement  in June 2006 that the Company has
  signed a Letter of Intent to enter into a  licensing  agreement  for part of our
  heavy fuel engine technology.  In addition,  despite its limited cash resources,
  the Company to date has avoided  filing for  bankruptcy  protection and has made
  significant payments to outside creditors.  These are clear indications that the
  grant of the security interests,  taken to keep the Company in operation,  meets
  the legal  standard for  interested  director  transactions  that  requires such
  transactions to be fair and reasonable to a corporation.  We are frustrated that
  so much of our time,  as well as scarce cash,  is spent on defending  groundless
  litigation  as opposed to focusing on the business and  concluding  transactions
  such as the license  contemplated  by the recent  letter of intent.  We deny the
  allegations in Mr. Rose's  Stockholder  Derivative  Complaint and plan to timely
  respond and defend ourselves accordingly.  A further unfortunate complication of
  the Stockholder  Derivative  Complaint is that it affects two  non-affiliates of
  Sonex who are  parties to the  security  interests,  consultant  Mike Keller and
  stockholder  Sidney  Gulick,  and we  regret  that  this  lawsuit  places  their
  financial security at risk."
  
  
  February 2005 action alleging securities fraud (litigation ongoing)
  
  In  February  2005 a  Complaint  was  filed in the U.S.  District  Court for the
  Eastern  District of  Pennsylvania  by Bruce W. Majer of Plymouth  Meeting,  PA,
  Allen W. Fortna of Whitehall, PA, and the Hermitage Partnership of Philadelphia,
  PA (together,  referred to as the "Investors") seeking the return of $175,000 in
  equity  investments made in Sonex during 2004 plus unspecified  compensatory and
  punitive  damages.  The Complaint is an action for federal and state  securities
  fraud,  common law fraud,  and related  claims by the Investors who believe they
  were induced to purchase  securities based on a series of alleged  misstatements
  and  omissions,  and is filed  against  Sonex,  its  former  President,  CEO and
  director  Roger D. Posey,  former  director  Jim Z.I.  Williams who was a former
  business associate of Mr. Posey's, Dr. Andrew A. Pouring,  Sonex Chairman of the
  Board,  CEO and  President,  and George E.  Ponticas,  Sonex CFO,  Secretary and
  director. The Plaintiffs claim, among other things, that the defendants withheld
  information  from them prior to their  investments that has since rendered their
  investments worthless.
  
  Management  believes that the  allegations  of the Complaint are without  merit.
  Many of the allegations relate to alleged statements and misrepresentations made
  to the Investors in the presentation of the investment  opportunity by Mr. Posey
  and Mr.  Rose,  who  introduced  Mr.  Posey to Sonex and was then engaged by the
  Company in February  2004 to provide  financial  advisory  and other  consulting
  services.  Mr. Rose and/or GECI are  mentioned  numerous  times in an  Affidavit
  filed by Mr. Majer and generally in the context of  representations  made by Mr.
  Rose or Mr. Posey to the Investors.
  
  In late March 2005 legal counsel for the Company  filed on behalf of Sonex,  Dr.
  Pouring,  and Mr.  Ponticas,  a Motion to Dismiss the  Complaint  for failure to
  state a cognizable  claim as a matter of law and for lack of  jurisdiction  over
  the Company's  current  officers.  Sonex  management  continues to believe that,
  aside from failing to meet the legal  requirements,  the claims in the Complaint
  are without merit, and that documents supplied to the Plaintiffs fully disclosed
  the risks of an investment in Sonex.  In late April 2005 the Court  referred the
  case to a magistrate judge for mediation, but the parties were unable to resolve
  the  case.  In  November  2005 the  Plaintiffs  filed  their  opposition  to the
  Company's  Motion to  Dismiss,  and the Company  followed  with its own Reply in
  Support of Motion to Dismiss.
  
  A hearing  scheduled  for March 31,  2006 for oral  arguments  on the  Company's
  Motion to Dismiss was canceled by mutual  request of the parties in the interest
  of minimizing the expense of litigation; thus, the Court will rule on the Motion
  without a hearing. No timetable for a decision by the Court has been provided.
  
  The prevalence of Mr. Rose and his alleged role and tandem  involvement with Mr.
  Posey raised the issue of whether Mr. Rose is a necessary  party to be joined as
  a  defendant.  The  Company  believes  that Dr.  Pouring  and Mr.  Ponticas  are
  peripheral  defendants to this case added more for settlement  leverage than for
  any alleged  wrongdoing.  In  connection  with its  defense of a September  2005
  lawsuit filed by GECI as described  below,  in January 2006 the Company filed an
  Amended  Counterclaim  and Third Party  Complaint  requesting  that  judgment be
  entered  against  Mr.  Rose and GECI for  indemnification  in the  amount of any
  judgment  entered  against  Sonex in the Majer case,  although  Sonex  expressly
  denies any and all liability to the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs.
  
  
  April 2005 action alleging violations of Maryland corporation law (dismissed)
  
  In April 2005  shareholders  Robert T. Emmet of Annapolis,  Maryland,  Sidney L.
  Gulick, 3d of Adelphi, Maryland, and Robert Martin, Jr. of Myersville, Maryland,
  filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel  County  against  Sonex,
  Dr. Pouring and Mr.  Ponticas  alleging the fraudulent  transfer of ownership of
  the  Company's  patents  to its  officers.  The  Plaintiffs  sought a $1 million
  judgment in their favor for alleged violations of Maryland law regarding actions
  by  directors  who have a financial  interest  in a  particular  transaction  or
  contract approved by the Board.
  
  The  Complaint  concerned  actions  taken by  management  early in 2005 during a
  period of extreme  cash flow  difficulties  to insure that key  personnel  would
  continue  to provide  services  and loans in order for the  Company to remain in
  operation. The Company executed a First Loan and Security Agreement (the "FLSA")
  effective  as of  January  2005  granting a priority  security  interest  in its
  patents to Dr. Pouring, Mr. Ponticas,  and Michael I. Keller, the consultant who
  serves as the Company's  Director of Business  Development and Technical Program
  Manager,  to secure  payment of  compensation  being  deferred on an ongoing and
  future basis, new loans made to the Company,  and personal financial  guaranties
  by Dr. Pouring of Company credit card  obligations.  The Company also executed a
  Second Loan and Security  Agreement (the "SLSA"),  subordinated  to the FLSA, in
  favor of these individuals for financial obligations incurred prior to 2005. The
  SLSA also applied to notes payable to Plaintiff Gulick.
  
  In exchange for the grant of the security interests in the patents, Dr. Pouring,
  Mr. Ponticas,  and Mr. Keller agreed to stay, through March 31, 2005, any demand
  for immediate payment of unpaid  compensation  earned beginning in January 2005.
  Although that date passed, no demand for payment was made.
  
  Sonex denied the  allegations  in the  Complaint,  asserting  instead that these
  shareholders  misunderstood the facts concerning the actions taken by management
  to keep Sonex in  operation.  A  settlement  of the case was reached  through an
  agreement to stay the case during court-ordered mediation in July 2005. The stay
  was  executed  in  October  2005.  The  Company,  while  continuing  to deny the
  allegations, settled the lawsuit in order to minimize the expense and disruption
  to its business of continuing to litigate the case.
  The Company continues to maintain title to its patents.
  
  Under the settlement,  the parties agreed to stay the case until March 31, 2006.
  The Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all monetary claims without prejudice  (meaning
  they had the right to refile  monetary  claims within the applicable  statute of
  limitations).  In exchange,  Dr. Pouring, Mr. Ponticas, and Mr. Keller agreed to
  stay any demand for immediate  payment of unpaid  current  compensation  through
  March 31, 2006 if they continued in the service of the Company or if no event of
  default  under the FLSA or SLSA  occurs.  The Company  also agreed to invite the
  Plaintiffs to participate in discussions  and offer  assistance and  suggestions
  regarding the appointment of independent  directors to the Board of Directors of
  Sonex.  In addition,  Mr. Gulick agreed to extend the due dates of notes payable
  to him by the Company  through  March 31, 2006.  The  principal  amounts of such
  notes totaled $106,000, but the Company subsequently made a principal payment of
  $6,000 in  December  2005.  Unpaid  interest  at  December  31, 2005 was paid in
  January 2006.
  
  The  Plaintiffs  had 30 days from March 31, 2006 to petition the court to reopen
  the case;  otherwise,  the case would be dismissed with prejudice,  meaning that
  the Plaintiffs  would be barred from making such claims in the future.  In early
  March  2006,  the  Plaintiffs  agreed to an early  dismissal  of the  case.  The
  Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice executed by the Plaintiffs was
  filed  with  the  court on March  24,  2006.  The  Company  subsequently  made a
  principal  payment  of  $5,000  to Mr.  Gulick  on March  31,  2006 and  reached
  agreement  shortly  with  him on a  further  extension  of the  due  date of the
  remaining  $95,000  notes payable to him to December 31, 2006. On June 30, 2006,
  the Company made another  principal payment of $5,000 to Mr. Gulick and paid all
  accrued interest on the notes. Total note principal payments to Mr. Gulick since
  January 2005 have aggregated $16,000.
  
  Dr. Pouring,  Mr. Ponticas and Mr. Keller continue to defer all of their current
  compensation;  however, subsequent to the January 2005 inception of the loan and
  security  agreements,  the Company has been able to make payments on obligations
  covered  by  the  SLSA  of  approximately  $160,000  to  these  individuals  for
  compensation due from years prior to 2005,  payments on loans from Mr. Keller in
  the  principal  amount  of  $20,000,  and  payments  to reduce  equipment  lease
  obligations by $20,300. The Company also has repaid loans made to the Company in
  March 2005 by Dr. Pouring and Mr. Ponticas  totaling  $10,000 which were covered
  by the FLSA.
  
  As of June 30, 2006, financial obligations aggregating $1,164,200 are secured by
  the  Company's  patents.  The FLSA  applies to total  financial  obligations  of
  $610,223,  consisting  of unpaid  compensation  of  $501,984,  loans,  excluding
  accrued  interest,   from  Mr.  Keller  of  $67,000,  and  Company  credit  card
  obligations under personal financial  guaranties by Dr. Pouring of $41,239.  The
  SLSA applies to total  financial  obligations of $553,977,  consisting of unpaid
  compensation of $452,275, loans, excluding accrued interest, of $90,000 from Mr.
  Gulick and $5,000 from Mr. Keller, and Company equipment lease obligations under
  personal  financial  guaranties  by Dr.  Pouring of $6,702.  Mr. Keller has also
  agreed to extend the due date of the  remaining  $72,000 in notes payable to him
  to December 31, 2006.
  
  As described below,  GECI,  beginning with an attempt in March 2006 to amend its
  September 2005 lawsuit and subsequently via a Stockholder  Derivative  Complaint
  filed in July 2006, has alleged the same violations of Maryland  Corporation Law
  regarding the FLSA and SLSA against Dr.  Pouring and Mr.  Ponticas as originally
  filed in the Complaint, subsequently voluntarily dismissed, by former Plaintiffs
  Emmet, Gulick and Martin.
  
  
  September 2005 action for alleged non-delivery of stock (litigation ongoing)
  
  In September  2005 GECI filed a Complaint  in the Circuit  Court in Anne Arundel
  County,  Maryland,  demanding delivery of 1 million shares of Sonex common stock
  without restrictions or, in the alternative,  $1 million in damages, pursuant to
  an April 30, 2004 Consulting Agreement with Sonex executed by Mr. Rose. Prior to
  filing its response to the Complaint,  Sonex filed a current report with the SEC
  stating  that  GECI  was  compensated  with  delivery  of 1  million  shares  of
  unrestricted Sonex common stock, and indicating there was a dispute over whether
  GECI was entitled to any additional compensation. Shortly thereafter, GECI filed
  a First Amended Complaint for specific  performance and breach of contract,  now
  seeking 750,000 shares of Sonex restricted  common stock as opposed to 1 million
  shares of Sonex common stock without  restrictions  or, in the  alternative,  $1
  million in damages. At the same time, GECI filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
  
  In August 2003 Sonex was introduced to Mr. Rose by Mr. Emmet as a consultant who
  was in the investor  relations  business and represented  that he had experience
  with similar  companies  raising  capital and increasing  distribution  of their
  stock.  In January 2004 Mr. Rose  introduced  Sonex to Mr. Posey and recommended
  Mr. Posey be hired as President of Sonex. On February 23, 2004,  Sonex hired Mr.
  Posey as President.  Sonex  contends that it reached  verbal  agreement with Mr.
  Rose and GECI on a  consulting  relationship  on  February  23,  2004 to provide
  business development, product planning, corporate structure, financial advisory,
  and other services for one year through February 22, 2005. This verbal agreement
  was  confirmed  by the minutes of the Sonex Board of  Director's  meeting  dated
  February 24, 2004.  GECI then received 1 million  shares of  free-trading  Sonex
  common stock via transfer  from four Sonex  shareholders,  including  Mr. Emmet.
  After the verbal  agreement was reached on February 23, 2004, and after multiple
  requests  from  Sonex,  in March 2004 Mr.  Rose  delivered  a written,  unsigned
  consulting  agreement  to Sonex  confirming  the terms of the  verbal  agreement
  reached  on  February  23,  2004,  including  the  type of  services  and  total
  compensation  of 1 million shares of free-trading  Sonex common stock.  Mr. Rose
  did not sign this agreement.
  
  On or about April 8, 2004, Mr. Rose asked Mr. Posey to renegotiate  the terms of
  his  compensation  with  Sonex.  Mr.  Williams  was  appointed  to the  Board of
  Directors on April 15, 2004.  On April 30, 2004,  GECI and Sonex  executed a new
  consulting  agreement,   with  an  effective  date  of  February  23,  2004  and
  terminating on February 22, 2005, providing for the original 1 million shares of
  free-trading  Sonex  common  stock plus an  additional  750,000  shares of Sonex
  restricted common stock and warrants to purchase an additional 750,000 shares of
  Sonex common stock. No additional  services from those specified in the original
  February 23, 2004 agreement were to be provided by Mr. Rose in consideration for
  the additional  stock and warrants.  The three Directors that voted on April 30,
  2004 on approval of the renegotiated Consulting Agreement were Mr. Williams, Mr.
  Posey, and Dr. Pouring.
  
  In October  2004 Mr.  Majer,  the lead  plaintiff in the  Pennsylvania  lawsuit,
  requested a meeting with Mr. Rose and Mr.  Ponticas.  At this meeting,  Mr. Rose
  informed  Mr.  Ponticas  for the first  time that  GECI had  transferred  to Mr.
  Williams  in March 2004 and April  2004 a total of  300,000 of the  free-trading
  shares of Sonex common stock  received by GECI in  connection  with the February
  23, 2004 Consulting  Agreement,  with 200,000 of the shares being transferred on
  April 16, 2004, the day after Mr. Williams was named a director of the Company.
  
  Based on this  information,  in October  2005 Sonex filed an Answer  denying the
  allegations in GECI's First Amended  Complaint and a Memorandum in Opposition to
  GECI's  Motion for Summary  Judgment.  The Company  asserted that the Motion for
  Summary Judgment should be denied for two central reasons.  First, the April 30,
  2004  Consulting   Agreement  was  procured  by  negligent  and/or   intentional
  concealment by Mr. Rose of the fact that GECI had transferred  300,000 shares of
  Sonex stock to Mr. Williams,  one of three members of the Board of Directors who
  was to vote to approve  the April 30,  2004  Consulting  Agreement,  which was a
  renegotiation of the original February 23, 2004 agreement. Had Dr. Pouring known
  of the transfer of stock to Mr.  Williams by GECI,  he would never have voted to
  approve the additional compensation. Second, GECI failed to properly perform all
  the general business consulting services set forth in the consulting  agreement,
  including but not limited to  introducing  Sonex to new sources of financing and
  capital.  Sonex asserted that there are material  facts in dispute,  and GECI is
  not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
  
  In November 2005 Sonex filed a Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment, requesting
  the Court enter judgment against GECI and declare the Consulting Agreement void,
  and enter judgment against GECI in the amount of $100,000.  GECI filed an Answer
  to  Counterclaim  in  which it  denied  the  Company's  allegations  and  sought
  dismissal of the Counterclaim.
  
  The  Plaintiffs  in the  Pennsylvania  lawsuit  above allege that Mr. Rose, as a
  hired  consultant  and  agent of Sonex,  played  an  active  role in the acts or
  omissions  alleged in each count.  The Company contends that if the Pennsylvania
  Plaintiffs prevail on any of the claims set forth in their lawsuit, Mr. Rose and
  GECI are liable in whole or in part for those  claims.  Accordingly,  in January
  2006 the  Company  filed an  Amended  Counterclaim  and  Third  Party  Complaint
  requesting   that   judgment   be  entered   against   Mr.  Rose  and  GECI  for
  indemnification  in the  amount of any  judgment  entered  against  Sonex in the
  Pennsylvania  lawsuit,  although Sonex expressly denies any and all liability to
  the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs. In February 2006 GECI responded by filing an Answer
  denying  liability.  In early March 2006 Mr.  Rose filed an Answer also  denying
  liability.
  
  On or about  March 10,  2006,  GECI filed an Amended  Complaint  and Third Party
  Complaint  alleging in Count III that the actions of Sonex,  Dr. Pouring and Mr.
  Ponticas in executing the FLSA and the SLSA granting  security  interests in the
  Company's patents violate Maryland law regarding actions by directors who have a
  financial  interest in a  particular  transaction  or  contract  approved by the
  Board.  GECI  contended  the execution of the FLSA and the SLSA  represented  an
  "interested director transaction", was "procured by negligent and/or intentional
  concealment of material facts",  was "unfair and unreasonable to the corporation
  and should be vacated".
  
  As noted  previously,  on March  24,  2006,  Sonex  filed  with  the  court  the
  Stipulation of Voluntary  Dismissal with Prejudice executed by Plaintiffs Emmet,
  Gulick and Martin in regard to that action which also  challenged  the execution
  of the security  interests.  On March 27,  2006,  Sonex filed a Motion to Strike
  and/or  Dismiss Count III of the Amended  Complaint  and Third Party  Complaint.
  Management  believes that the execution of the loan and security  agreements was
  fair and  reasonable  to the  Company  and has  permitted  Sonex to  continue in
  operation since that time.
  
  On April 11, 2006,  GECI's Motion for Summary  Judgment  against the Company was
  denied,  meaning  that  case may  proceed  to trial  because  there are facts in
  dispute.  While  discovery is ongoing,  the case must be concluded by March 2007
  under the Court's time standard deadline.
  
  On July 6, 2006, the Company's  Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss Count III of the
  Amended Complaint and Third Party Complaint was granted.
  
  
  July 2006 action alleging violations of Maryland corporation law (ongoing)
  
  Shortly  after the Company's  Motion to Strike  and/or  Dismiss Count III of the
  Amended  Complaint and Third Party  Complaint was granted on July 6, 2006,  GECI
  filed a Stockholder  Derivative  Complaint in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel
  County,  Maryland,  against Dr.  Pouring  and Mr.  Ponticas on its behalf and on
  behalf of all other  stockholders  and Sonex,  alleging  that the two  directors
  unlawfully  created a security  interest  in their favor on the assets of Sonex.
  The  Stockholder  Derivative  Complaint  alleges that the security  interest was
  "procured by negligent  and/or  intentional  concealment of material  facts" and
  seeks  rescission of the  transaction.  The lawsuit also notes in support of the
  allegations  that other  stockholders  (Emmet,  Gulick and Martin) had brought a
  similar  action,  but it  fails to  report  that  this  action  was  voluntarily
  dismissed.
  
  Dr. Pouring and Mr.  Ponticas  believe that the  allegations in the  Stockholder
  Derivative  Complaint  are without merit and that the filing of the lawsuit does
  not serve the best  interests  of Sonex  stockholders  as implied by GECI in the
  Complaint.  Management  believes that the grant of the security  interests meets
  the legal  standard for  interested  director  transactions  that  requires such
  transactions to be fair and reasonable to a corporation,  and have benefited the
  Company.
  
  
  Contact:  George E. Ponticas,  CFO, Sonex  Research,  Inc.,  tel:  410-266-5556,
  email: george.ponticas@sonex-na.com, website: www.sonexresearch.com.
  
  
  About Sonex
  
  Sonex  Research,  Inc.,  a leader  in the  field of  combustion  technology,  is
  developing its patented Sonex Combustion  System (SCS)  piston-based  technology
  for in-cylinder  control of ignition and  combustion,  designed to increase fuel
  mileage and reduce  emissions  of internal  combustion  engines.  Sonex plans to
  complete  development,  commercialize  and  market  its  Sonex  Controlled  Auto
  Ignition (SCAI)  combustion  process to the automotive  industry to improve fuel
  efficiency of gasoline powered vehicles.  Additionally,  independent third-party
  testing has confirmed the potential of the SCS application  for  direct-injected
  diesel  engines  to  significantly   reduce  harmful  soot  in-cylinder  without
  increasing  fuel  consumption.  Other  SCS  designs  are being  used to  convert
  gasoline engines of various sizes to operate on safer, diesel-type "heavy fuels"
  for use in military and commercial  applications requiring light weight and safe
  handling and storage of fuel, such as in UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles).
  
  
  CAUTION REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
  
  "Forward-looking"  statements  contained in this report, as well as all publicly
  disseminated  material about the Company, are made pursuant to the "safe harbor"
  provisions of the Private  Securities  Litigation Act. Such statements are based
  on current  expectations,  estimates,  projections and assumptions by management
  with respect to matters such as commercial acceptance of the SCS technology, the
  impact of  competition,  and the  Company's  financial  condition  or results of
  operations.  Readers are cautioned  that such  statements  are not guarantees of
  future  performance and involve risks and uncertainties  that could cause actual
  results to differ  materially from those  expressed in any such  forward-looking
  statements.
  
  
  RISK FACTORS
  
  Additional  information  regarding  the risks  faced by Sonex is provided in the
  Company's  periodic  filings with the Securities and Exchange  Commission  (SEC)
  under the heading "Risk  Factors".  Such filings are available upon request from
  the Company or online in the SEC's EDGAR database at  www.sec.gov.  The Company,
  however,  is delinquent in its filings with the SEC. It has not filed its Annual
  Reports on Form 10-KSB for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2005 because it
  lacks the financial  resources to engage its independent  accountants to conduct
  audits of the December 31, 2004 and 2005  financial  statements,  and because it
  lacks the  staffing to prepare  the Form 10-KSB  itself due in large part to the
  amount of time  management has spent in responding to  litigation.  For the same
  reasons,  the  Company  has been  unable to file its  Quarterly  Reports on Form
  10-QSB for 2005 and 2006.  The Company is unable to predict when it will be able
  to make these  filings and there can be no  assurance  that the filings  will be
  made at all. In addition, there can be no assurance that a public market for the
  Company's Common Stock will continue to exist.
  
                                   ###
  
  
  SIGNATURES
  
  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.
  
  
  July 19, 2006
  
  
  SONEX RESEARCH, INC.
  Registrant
  
  
  
  /s/ George E. Ponticas
  ----------------------
  George E. Ponticas
  Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
metadata_documents: [{"type": "8-K", "sequence": "1", "filename": "r8k-071906.txt", "description": "CURRENT REPORT ON FORM 8-K", "secsgml_size_bytes": 30510}]
metadata_filer: {"company-data": {"conformed-name": "SONEX RESEARCH INC", "cik": "0000723312", "assigned-sic": "8731", "irs-number": "521188993", "state-of-incorporation": "MD", "fiscal-year-end": "1231"}, "filing-values": {"form-type": "8-K", "act": "34", "file-number": "000-14465", "film-number": "06970352"}, "business-address": {"street1": "23 HUDSON ST", "city": "ANNAPOLIS", "state": "MD", "zip": "21401", "phone": "4102665556"}, "mail-address": {"street1": "23 HUDSON STREET", "city": "ANNAPOLIS", "state": "MD", "zip": "21401"}}
text: 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): July 19, 2006
  
                              SONEX RESEARCH, INC.
                (Exact name of registrant as specified in Charter)
  
           Maryland                  000-14465              52-1188993
        (State or other           (Commision file         (IRS employer
        jurisdiction of               number)           identification no.)
         incorporation)
  
                       23 Hudson Street, Annapolis, MD 21401
                      (Address of principal executive offices)
  
                                (410) 266-5556
               (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)
  
                                      N/A
           (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):
  
  [ ]  Written communications  pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act
       (17 CFR 230.425)
  [ ]  Soliciting  material  pursuant to Rule 14a-12  under the Exchange Act
       (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
  [ ]  Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the
       Exchange  Act (17 CFR  240.14d-2(b))
  [ ]  Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the
       Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
  
  ITEM 8.01 - OTHER EVENTS
  
  On July 19, 2006, the  Registrant  posted the following  announcement  on its
  website (www.sonexresearch.com):
  
  LITIGATION UPDATE
  
  ANNAPOLIS,  MARYLAND,  July 19, 2006 - SONEX RESEARCH, INC. (OTC SONX) announced
  that Global Equity Consultants,  Inc. ("GECI"), which in September 2005 filed an
  action for alleged non-delivery of stock pursuant to a consulting agreement, has
  filed  another  lawsuit  alleging  violations of Maryland  Corporation  Law with
  respect to  interested  director  transactions.  GECI has filed this action as a
  stockholder derivative complaint challenging the grant by Sonex in early 2005 of
  security  interests  in its  patents to its  officers  and  directors  to secure
  payment of compensation being deferred on an ongoing and future basis as well as
  new loans and other  financial  obligations.  GECI,  whose president is James A.
  Rose,  II of  Arnold,  Maryland,  claims  that the  transaction  "is  unfair and
  unreasonable" to Sonex. Three local  shareholders  previously filed a lawsuit in
  April  2005  challenging  the  grant  of  the  security  interests,   but  after
  court-ordered  mediation  in July 2005,  the matter was settled and  voluntarily
  dismissed by those  plaintiffs in March 2006. Thus, GECI now has filed virtually
  the same lawsuit that was previously voluntarily dismissed.
  
  Earlier  this year GECI  attempted  to amend its  September  2005 lawsuit to add
  these allegations as a Third Party Complaint  specifically against Dr. Andrew A.
  Pouring, Sonex Chairman of the Board, CEO and President, and George E. Ponticas,
  CFO, Secretary and director.  The Company responded on behalf of Dr. Pouring and
  Mr.  Ponticas by filing a Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss the Amended  Complaint
  and the Third Party  Complaint  because  the  stockholder  derivative  claim was
  completely unrelated to the underlying case regarding the consulting  agreement.
  On July 6,  2006,  the Court  granted  the  Company's  Motion  to Strike  and/or
  Dismiss.  Although the Company has yet to be served with the new  lawsuit,  GECI
  has since filed a Stockholder Derivative Complaint in the Circuit Court for Anne
  Arundel County, Maryland, against Dr. Pouring and Mr. Ponticas on its behalf and
  on behalf of all other  stockholders and Sonex,  alleging that the two directors
  unlawfully  created a security  interest  in their favor on the assets of Sonex.
  The  Stockholder  Derivative  Complaint  alleges that the security  interest was
  "procured by negligent  and/or  intentional  concealment of material  facts" and
  seeks  rescission of the  transaction.  The lawsuit also notes in support of the
  allegations that other  stockholders had brought a similar action,  but it fails
  to report that this action was voluntarily dismissed.
  
  Dr. Pouring and Mr.  Ponticas  believe that the  allegations in the  Stockholder
  Derivative  Complaint  are without merit and that the filing of the lawsuit does
  not serve the best  interests  of Sonex  stockholders  as implied by GECI in the
  Complaint.
  
  GECI's  Motion for  Summary  Judgment  against the Company in the first case was
  denied in April 2006,  meaning that case may proceed to trial  because there are
  facts in dispute.  While  discovery  is ongoing,  the case must be  concluded by
  March 2007 under the Court's time  standard  deadline.  Meanwhile,  a securities
  fraud action filed against Sonex in Federal  court in  Pennsylvania  in February
  2005  continues in litigation.  The court has before it the Company's  Motion to
  Dismiss on which it will rule without a hearing.  An overview of the  litigation
  activity during 2005 and 2006 is presented below.
  
  Sonex  management  believes  that the  allegations  in the  ongoing  actions are
  without merit and the Company will prevail in court. Dr. Pouring stated "I don't
  understand the motivation behind this latest lawsuit by Mr. Rose. Sonex has made
  significant  business  progress since the granting of the security  interests in
  early  2005,  particularly  the  announcement  in June 2006 that the Company has
  signed a Letter of Intent to enter into a  licensing  agreement  for part of our
  heavy fuel engine technology.  In addition,  despite its limited cash resources,
  the Company to date has avoided  filing for  bankruptcy  protection and has made
  significant payments to outside creditors.  These are clear indications that the
  grant of the security interests,  taken to keep the Company in operation,  meets
  the legal  standard for  interested  director  transactions  that  requires such
  transactions to be fair and reasonable to a corporation.  We are frustrated that
  so much of our time,  as well as scarce cash,  is spent on defending  groundless
  litigation  as opposed to focusing on the business and  concluding  transactions
  such as the license  contemplated  by the recent  letter of intent.  We deny the
  allegations in Mr. Rose's  Stockholder  Derivative  Complaint and plan to timely
  respond and defend ourselves accordingly.  A further unfortunate complication of
  the Stockholder  Derivative  Complaint is that it affects two  non-affiliates of
  Sonex who are  parties to the  security  interests,  consultant  Mike Keller and
  stockholder  Sidney  Gulick,  and we  regret  that  this  lawsuit  places  their
  financial security at risk."
  
  February 2005 action alleging securities fraud (litigation ongoing)
  
  In  February  2005 a  Complaint  was  filed in the U.S.  District  Court for the
  Eastern  District of  Pennsylvania  by Bruce W. Majer of Plymouth  Meeting,  PA,
  Allen W. Fortna of Whitehall, PA, and the Hermitage Partnership of Philadelphia,
  PA (together,  referred to as the "Investors") seeking the return of $175,000 in
  equity  investments made in Sonex during 2004 plus unspecified  compensatory and
  punitive  damages.  The Complaint is an action for federal and state  securities
  fraud,  common law fraud,  and related  claims by the Investors who believe they
  were induced to purchase  securities based on a series of alleged  misstatements
  and  omissions,  and is filed  against  Sonex,  its  former  President,  CEO and
  director  Roger D. Posey,  former  director  Jim Z.I.  Williams who was a former
  business associate of Mr. Posey's, Dr. Andrew A. Pouring,  Sonex Chairman of the
  Board,  CEO and  President,  and George E.  Ponticas,  Sonex CFO,  Secretary and
  director. The Plaintiffs claim, among other things, that the defendants withheld
  information  from them prior to their  investments that has since rendered their
  investments worthless.
  
  Management  believes that the  allegations  of the Complaint are without  merit.
  Many of the allegations relate to alleged statements and misrepresentations made
  to the Investors in the presentation of the investment  opportunity by Mr. Posey
  and Mr.  Rose,  who  introduced  Mr.  Posey to Sonex and was then engaged by the
  Company in February  2004 to provide  financial  advisory  and other  consulting
  services.  Mr. Rose and/or GECI are  mentioned  numerous  times in an  Affidavit
  filed by Mr. Majer and generally in the context of  representations  made by Mr.
  Rose or Mr. Posey to the Investors.
  
  In late March 2005 legal counsel for the Company  filed on behalf of Sonex,  Dr.
  Pouring,  and Mr.  Ponticas,  a Motion to Dismiss the  Complaint  for failure to
  state a cognizable  claim as a matter of law and for lack of  jurisdiction  over
  the Company's  current  officers.  Sonex  management  continues to believe that,
  aside from failing to meet the legal  requirements,  the claims in the Complaint
  are without merit, and that documents supplied to the Plaintiffs fully disclosed
  the risks of an investment in Sonex.  In late April 2005 the Court  referred the
  case to a magistrate judge for mediation, but the parties were unable to resolve
  the  case.  In  November  2005 the  Plaintiffs  filed  their  opposition  to the
  Company's  Motion to  Dismiss,  and the Company  followed  with its own Reply in
  Support of Motion to Dismiss.
  
  A hearing  scheduled  for March 31,  2006 for oral  arguments  on the  Company's
  Motion to Dismiss was canceled by mutual  request of the parties in the interest
  of minimizing the expense of litigation; thus, the Court will rule on the Motion
  without a hearing. No timetable for a decision by the Court has been provided.
  
  The prevalence of Mr. Rose and his alleged role and tandem  involvement with Mr.
  Posey raised the issue of whether Mr. Rose is a necessary  party to be joined as
  a  defendant.  The  Company  believes  that Dr.  Pouring  and Mr.  Ponticas  are
  peripheral  defendants to this case added more for settlement  leverage than for
  any alleged  wrongdoing.  In  connection  with its  defense of a September  2005
  lawsuit filed by GECI as described  below,  in January 2006 the Company filed an
  Amended  Counterclaim  and Third Party  Complaint  requesting  that  judgment be
  entered  against  Mr.  Rose and GECI for  indemnification  in the  amount of any
  judgment  entered  against  Sonex in the Majer case,  although  Sonex  expressly
  denies any and all liability to the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs.
  
  April 2005 action alleging violations of Maryland corporation law (dismissed)
  
  In April 2005  shareholders  Robert T. Emmet of Annapolis,  Maryland,  Sidney L.
  Gulick, 3d of Adelphi, Maryland, and Robert Martin, Jr. of Myersville, Maryland,
  filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel  County  against  Sonex,
  Dr. Pouring and Mr.  Ponticas  alleging the fraudulent  transfer of ownership of
  the  Company's  patents  to its  officers.  The  Plaintiffs  sought a $1 million
  judgment in their favor for alleged violations of Maryland law regarding actions
  by  directors  who have a financial  interest  in a  particular  transaction  or
  contract approved by the Board.
  
  The  Complaint  concerned  actions  taken by  management  early in 2005 during a
  period of extreme  cash flow  difficulties  to insure that key  personnel  would
  continue  to provide  services  and loans in order for the  Company to remain in
  operation. The Company executed a First Loan and Security Agreement (the "FLSA")
  effective  as of  January  2005  granting a priority  security  interest  in its
  patents to Dr. Pouring, Mr. Ponticas,  and Michael I. Keller, the consultant who
  serves as the Company's  Director of Business  Development and Technical Program
  Manager,  to secure  payment of  compensation  being  deferred on an ongoing and
  future basis, new loans made to the Company,  and personal financial  guaranties
  by Dr. Pouring of Company credit card  obligations.  The Company also executed a
  Second Loan and Security  Agreement (the "SLSA"),  subordinated  to the FLSA, in
  favor of these individuals for financial obligations incurred prior to 2005. The
  SLSA also applied to notes payable to Plaintiff Gulick.
  
  In exchange for the grant of the security interests in the patents, Dr. Pouring,
  Mr. Ponticas,  and Mr. Keller agreed to stay, through March 31, 2005, any demand
  for immediate payment of unpaid  compensation  earned beginning in January 2005.
  Although that date passed, no demand for payment was made.
  
  Sonex denied the  allegations  in the  Complaint,  asserting  instead that these
  shareholders  misunderstood the facts concerning the actions taken by management
  to keep Sonex in  operation.  A  settlement  of the case was reached  through an
  agreement to stay the case during court-ordered mediation in July 2005. The stay
  was  executed  in  October  2005.  The  Company,  while  continuing  to deny the
  allegations, settled the lawsuit in order to minimize the expense and disruption
  to its business of continuing to litigate the case.
  The Company continues to maintain title to its patents.
  
  Under the settlement,  the parties agreed to stay the case until March 31, 2006.
  The Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all monetary claims without prejudice  (meaning
  they had the right to refile  monetary  claims within the applicable  statute of
  limitations).  In exchange,  Dr. Pouring, Mr. Ponticas, and Mr. Keller agreed to
  stay any demand for immediate  payment of unpaid  current  compensation  through
  March 31, 2006 if they continued in the service of the Company or if no event of
  default  under the FLSA or SLSA  occurs.  The Company  also agreed to invite the
  Plaintiffs to participate in discussions  and offer  assistance and  suggestions
  regarding the appointment of independent  directors to the Board of Directors of
  Sonex.  In addition,  Mr. Gulick agreed to extend the due dates of notes payable
  to him by the Company  through  March 31, 2006.  The  principal  amounts of such
  notes totaled $106,000, but the Company subsequently made a principal payment of
  $6,000 in  December  2005.  Unpaid  interest  at  December  31, 2005 was paid in
  January 2006.
  
  The  Plaintiffs  had 30 days from March 31, 2006 to petition the court to reopen
  the case;  otherwise,  the case would be dismissed with prejudice,  meaning that
  the Plaintiffs  would be barred from making such claims in the future.  In early
  March  2006,  the  Plaintiffs  agreed to an early  dismissal  of the  case.  The
  Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice executed by the Plaintiffs was
  filed  with  the  court on March  24,  2006.  The  Company  subsequently  made a
  principal  payment  of  $5,000  to Mr.  Gulick  on March  31,  2006 and  reached
  agreement  shortly  with  him on a  further  extension  of the  due  date of the
  remaining  $95,000  notes payable to him to December 31, 2006. On June 30, 2006,
  the Company made another  principal payment of $5,000 to Mr. Gulick and paid all
  accrued interest on the notes. Total note principal payments to Mr. Gulick since
  January 2005 have aggregated $16,000.
  
  Dr. Pouring,  Mr. Ponticas and Mr. Keller continue to defer all of their current
  compensation;  however, subsequent to the January 2005 inception of the loan and
  security  agreements,  the Company has been able to make payments on obligations
  covered  by  the  SLSA  of  approximately  $160,000  to  these  individuals  for
  compensation due from years prior to 2005,  payments on loans from Mr. Keller in
  the  principal  amount  of  $20,000,  and  payments  to reduce  equipment  lease
  obligations by $20,300. The Company also has repaid loans made to the Company in
  March 2005 by Dr. Pouring and Mr. Ponticas  totaling  $10,000 which were covered
  by the FLSA.
  
  As of June 30, 2006, financial obligations aggregating $1,164,200 are secured by
  the  Company's  patents.  The FLSA  applies to total  financial  obligations  of
  $610,223,  consisting  of unpaid  compensation  of  $501,984,  loans,  excluding
  accrued  interest,   from  Mr.  Keller  of  $67,000,  and  Company  credit  card
  obligations under personal financial  guaranties by Dr. Pouring of $41,239.  The
  SLSA applies to total  financial  obligations of $553,977,  consisting of unpaid
  compensation of $452,275, loans, excluding accrued interest, of $90,000 from Mr.
  Gulick and $5,000 from Mr. Keller, and Company equipment lease obligations under
  personal  financial  guaranties  by Dr.  Pouring of $6,702.  Mr. Keller has also
  agreed to extend the due date of the  remaining  $72,000 in notes payable to him
  to December 31, 2006.
  
  As described below,  GECI,  beginning with an attempt in March 2006 to amend its
  September 2005 lawsuit and subsequently via a Stockholder  Derivative  Complaint
  filed in July 2006, has alleged the same violations of Maryland  Corporation Law
  regarding the FLSA and SLSA against Dr.  Pouring and Mr.  Ponticas as originally
  filed in the Complaint, subsequently voluntarily dismissed, by former Plaintiffs
  Emmet, Gulick and Martin.
  
  September 2005 action for alleged non-delivery of stock (litigation ongoing)
  
  In September  2005 GECI filed a Complaint  in the Circuit  Court in Anne Arundel
  County,  Maryland,  demanding delivery of 1 million shares of Sonex common stock
  without restrictions or, in the alternative,  $1 million in damages, pursuant to
  an April 30, 2004 Consulting Agreement with Sonex executed by Mr. Rose. Prior to
  filing its response to the Complaint,  Sonex filed a current report with the SEC
  stating  that  GECI  was  compensated  with  delivery  of 1  million  shares  of
  unrestricted Sonex common stock, and indicating there was a dispute over whether
  GECI was entitled to any additional compensation. Shortly thereafter, GECI filed
  a First Amended Complaint for specific  performance and breach of contract,  now
  seeking 750,000 shares of Sonex restricted  common stock as opposed to 1 million
  shares of Sonex common stock without  restrictions  or, in the  alternative,  $1
  million in damages. At the same time, GECI filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
  
  In August 2003 Sonex was introduced to Mr. Rose by Mr. Emmet as a consultant who
  was in the investor  relations  business and represented  that he had experience
  with similar  companies  raising  capital and increasing  distribution  of their
  stock.  In January 2004 Mr. Rose  introduced  Sonex to Mr. Posey and recommended
  Mr. Posey be hired as President of Sonex. On February 23, 2004,  Sonex hired Mr.
  Posey as President.  Sonex  contends that it reached  verbal  agreement with Mr.
  Rose and GECI on a  consulting  relationship  on  February  23,  2004 to provide
  business development, product planning, corporate structure, financial advisory,
  and other services for one year through February 22, 2005. This verbal agreement
  was  confirmed  by the minutes of the Sonex Board of  Director's  meeting  dated
  February 24, 2004.  GECI then received 1 million  shares of  free-trading  Sonex
  common stock via transfer  from four Sonex  shareholders,  including  Mr. Emmet.
  After the verbal  agreement was reached on February 23, 2004, and after multiple
  requests  from  Sonex,  in March 2004 Mr.  Rose  delivered  a written,  unsigned
  consulting  agreement  to Sonex  confirming  the terms of the  verbal  agreement
  reached  on  February  23,  2004,  including  the  type of  services  and  total
  compensation  of 1 million shares of free-trading  Sonex common stock.  Mr. Rose
  did not sign this agreement.
  
  On or about April 8, 2004, Mr. Rose asked Mr. Posey to renegotiate  the terms of
  his  compensation  with  Sonex.  Mr.  Williams  was  appointed  to the  Board of
  Directors on April 15, 2004.  On April 30, 2004,  GECI and Sonex  executed a new
  consulting  agreement,   with  an  effective  date  of  February  23,  2004  and
  terminating on February 22, 2005, providing for the original 1 million shares of
  free-trading  Sonex  common  stock plus an  additional  750,000  shares of Sonex
  restricted common stock and warrants to purchase an additional 750,000 shares of
  Sonex common stock. No additional  services from those specified in the original
  February 23, 2004 agreement were to be provided by Mr. Rose in consideration for
  the additional  stock and warrants.  The three Directors that voted on April 30,
  2004 on approval of the renegotiated Consulting Agreement were Mr. Williams, Mr.
  Posey, and Dr. Pouring.
  
  In October  2004 Mr.  Majer,  the lead  plaintiff in the  Pennsylvania  lawsuit,
  requested a meeting with Mr. Rose and Mr.  Ponticas.  At this meeting,  Mr. Rose
  informed  Mr.  Ponticas  for the first  time that  GECI had  transferred  to Mr.
  Williams  in March 2004 and April  2004 a total of  300,000 of the  free-trading
  shares of Sonex common stock  received by GECI in  connection  with the February
  23, 2004 Consulting  Agreement,  with 200,000 of the shares being transferred on
  April 16, 2004, the day after Mr. Williams was named a director of the Company.
  
  Based on this  information,  in October  2005 Sonex filed an Answer  denying the
  allegations in GECI's First Amended  Complaint and a Memorandum in Opposition to
  GECI's  Motion for Summary  Judgment.  The Company  asserted that the Motion for
  Summary Judgment should be denied for two central reasons.  First, the April 30,
  2004  Consulting   Agreement  was  procured  by  negligent  and/or   intentional
  concealment by Mr. Rose of the fact that GECI had transferred  300,000 shares of
  Sonex stock to Mr. Williams,  one of three members of the Board of Directors who
  was to vote to approve  the April 30,  2004  Consulting  Agreement,  which was a
  renegotiation of the original February 23, 2004 agreement. Had Dr. Pouring known
  of the transfer of stock to Mr.  Williams by GECI,  he would never have voted to
  approve the additional compensation. Second, GECI failed to properly perform all
  the general business consulting services set forth in the consulting  agreement,
  including but not limited to  introducing  Sonex to new sources of financing and
  capital.  Sonex asserted that there are material  facts in dispute,  and GECI is
  not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
  
  In November 2005 Sonex filed a Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment, requesting
  the Court enter judgment against GECI and declare the Consulting Agreement void,
  and enter judgment against GECI in the amount of $100,000.  GECI filed an Answer
  to  Counterclaim  in  which it  denied  the  Company's  allegations  and  sought
  dismissal of the Counterclaim.
  
  The  Plaintiffs  in the  Pennsylvania  lawsuit  above allege that Mr. Rose, as a
  hired  consultant  and  agent of Sonex,  played  an  active  role in the acts or
  omissions  alleged in each count.  The Company contends that if the Pennsylvania
  Plaintiffs prevail on any of the claims set forth in their lawsuit, Mr. Rose and
  GECI are liable in whole or in part for those  claims.  Accordingly,  in January
  2006 the  Company  filed an  Amended  Counterclaim  and  Third  Party  Complaint
  requesting   that   judgment   be  entered   against   Mr.  Rose  and  GECI  for
  indemnification  in the  amount of any  judgment  entered  against  Sonex in the
  Pennsylvania  lawsuit,  although Sonex expressly denies any and all liability to
  the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs. In February 2006 GECI responded by filing an Answer
  denying  liability.  In early March 2006 Mr.  Rose filed an Answer also  denying
  liability.
  
  On or about  March 10,  2006,  GECI filed an Amended  Complaint  and Third Party
  Complaint  alleging in Count III that the actions of Sonex,  Dr. Pouring and Mr.
  Ponticas in executing the FLSA and the SLSA granting  security  interests in the
  Company's patents violate Maryland law regarding actions by directors who have a
  financial  interest in a  particular  transaction  or  contract  approved by the
  Board.  GECI  contended  the execution of the FLSA and the SLSA  represented  an
  "interested director transaction", was "procured by negligent and/or intentional
  concealment of material facts",  was "unfair and unreasonable to the corporation
  and should be vacated".
  
  As noted  previously,  on March  24,  2006,  Sonex  filed  with  the  court  the
  Stipulation of Voluntary  Dismissal with Prejudice executed by Plaintiffs Emmet,
  Gulick and Martin in regard to that action which also  challenged  the execution
  of the security  interests.  On March 27,  2006,  Sonex filed a Motion to Strike
  and/or  Dismiss Count III of the Amended  Complaint  and Third Party  Complaint.
  Management  believes that the execution of the loan and security  agreements was
  fair and  reasonable  to the  Company  and has  permitted  Sonex to  continue in
  operation since that time.
  
  On April 11, 2006,  GECI's Motion for Summary  Judgment  against the Company was
  denied,  meaning  that  case may  proceed  to trial  because  there are facts in
  dispute.  While  discovery is ongoing,  the case must be concluded by March 2007
  under the Court's time standard deadline.
  
  On July 6, 2006, the Company's  Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss Count III of the
  Amended Complaint and Third Party Complaint was granted.
  
  July 2006 action alleging violations of Maryland corporation law (ongoing)
  
  Shortly  after the Company's  Motion to Strike  and/or  Dismiss Count III of the
  Amended  Complaint and Third Party  Complaint was granted on July 6, 2006,  GECI
  filed a Stockholder  Derivative  Complaint in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel
  County,  Maryland,  against Dr.  Pouring  and Mr.  Ponticas on its behalf and on
  behalf of all other  stockholders  and Sonex,  alleging  that the two  directors
  unlawfully  created a security  interest  in their favor on the assets of Sonex.
  The  Stockholder  Derivative  Complaint  alleges that the security  interest was
  "procured by negligent  and/or  intentional  concealment of material  facts" and
  seeks  rescission of the  transaction.  The lawsuit also notes in support of the
  allegations  that other  stockholders  (Emmet,  Gulick and Martin) had brought a
  similar  action,  but it  fails to  report  that  this  action  was  voluntarily
  dismissed.
  
  Dr. Pouring and Mr.  Ponticas  believe that the  allegations in the  Stockholder
  Derivative  Complaint  are without merit and that the filing of the lawsuit does
  not serve the best  interests  of Sonex  stockholders  as implied by GECI in the
  Complaint.  Management  believes that the grant of the security  interests meets
  the legal  standard for  interested  director  transactions  that  requires such
  transactions to be fair and reasonable to a corporation,  and have benefited the
  Company.
  
  Contact:  George E. Ponticas,  CFO, Sonex  Research,  Inc.,  tel:  410-266-5556,
  email: george.ponticas@sonex-na.com, website: www.sonexresearch.com.
  
  About Sonex
  
  Sonex  Research,  Inc.,  a leader  in the  field of  combustion  technology,  is
  developing its patented Sonex Combustion  System (SCS)  piston-based  technology
  for in-cylinder  control of ignition and  combustion,  designed to increase fuel
  mileage and reduce  emissions  of internal  combustion  engines.  Sonex plans to
  complete  development,  commercialize  and  market  its  Sonex  Controlled  Auto
  Ignition (SCAI)  combustion  process to the automotive  industry to improve fuel
  efficiency of gasoline powered vehicles.  Additionally,  independent third-party
  testing has confirmed the potential of the SCS application  for  direct-injected
  diesel  engines  to  significantly   reduce  harmful  soot  in-cylinder  without
  increasing  fuel  consumption.  Other  SCS  designs  are being  used to  convert
  gasoline engines of various sizes to operate on safer, diesel-type "heavy fuels"
  for use in military and commercial  applications requiring light weight and safe
  handling and storage of fuel, such as in UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles).
  
  CAUTION REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
  
  "Forward-looking"  statements  contained in this report, as well as all publicly
  disseminated  material about the Company, are made pursuant to the "safe harbor"
  provisions of the Private  Securities  Litigation Act. Such statements are based
  on current  expectations,  estimates,  projections and assumptions by management
  with respect to matters such as commercial acceptance of the SCS technology, the
  impact of  competition,  and the  Company's  financial  condition  or results of
  operations.  Readers are cautioned  that such  statements  are not guarantees of
  future  performance and involve risks and uncertainties  that could cause actual
  results to differ  materially from those  expressed in any such  forward-looking
  statements.
  
  RISK FACTORS
  
  Additional  information  regarding  the risks  faced by Sonex is provided in the
  Company's  periodic  filings with the Securities and Exchange  Commission  (SEC)
  under the heading "Risk  Factors".  Such filings are available upon request from
  the Company or online in the SEC's EDGAR database at  www.sec.gov.  The Company,
  however,  is delinquent in its filings with the SEC. It has not filed its Annual
  Reports on Form 10-KSB for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2005 because it
  lacks the financial  resources to engage its independent  accountants to conduct
  audits of the December 31, 2004 and 2005  financial  statements,  and because it
  lacks the  staffing to prepare  the Form 10-KSB  itself due in large part to the
  amount of time  management has spent in responding to  litigation.  For the same
  reasons,  the  Company  has been  unable to file its  Quarterly  Reports on Form
  10-QSB for 2005 and 2006.  The Company is unable to predict when it will be able
  to make these  filings and there can be no  assurance  that the filings  will be
  made at all. In addition, there can be no assurance that a public market for the
  Company's Common Stock will continue to exist.
  
                                   ###
  
  SIGNATURES
  
  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.
  
  July 19, 2006
  
  SONEX RESEARCH, INC.
  Registrant
  
  /s/ George E. Ponticas
  ----------------------
  George E. Ponticas
  Chief Financial Officer and Secretary