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): March 30, 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 March 30, 2006, the  Registrant  posted the following  announcement  on its
  website (www.sonexresearch.com):
  
  
  LAWSUITS UPDATE
  
  
  ANNAPOLIS,  MARYLAND, March 30, 2006 - SONEX RESEARCH, INC. (OTC SONX), provides
  the following  update on three legal  actions  filed against the Company  during
  2005. The first, a securities fraud action filed in February 2005,  continues in
  litigation.  A hearing  scheduled  for March 31, 2006 for oral  arguments on the
  Company's Motion to Dismiss has been canceled;  thus, the court will rule on the
  Motion without a hearing.  The second  action,  filed by local  shareholders  in
  April 2005  alleging  violations  of Maryland  Corporation  Law with respect to
  interested  director  transactions,  was just  dismissed.  The third,  an action
  alleging breach of contract for alleged  non-delivery of shares,  also continues
  in  litigation  and has been amended  recently to allege the same  violations of
  Maryland Corporation Law as in the second action.
  
  Management  believes that the allegations in the two ongoing actions are without
  merit and the  Company  will  prevail in court.  Dr.  Andrew A.  Pouring,  Sonex
  Chairman of the Board, CEO and President,  has expressed his  disappointment  at
  the negative impact  litigation has had on the progress of the Company,  and his
  dismay at the failure of the individuals  leading the two actions that remain in
  litigation to recognize the harm being done to the Company and its shareholders.
  
  The status of litigation is addressed below.
  
  
  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, current CFO, Secretary and director George E.
  Ponticas,  and Dr. Pouring.  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 James A. Rose, II, President of Global Equity  Consultants,  Inc.  ("GECI"),
  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. (GECI later filed its own lawsuit against the Company as
  explained below.)
  
  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  has been  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 the 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,  MD, Sidney L. Gulick,
  3d of Adelphi,  MD, and Robert Martin, Jr. of Myersville,  MD, 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  expects to reach  agreement
  shortly with Mr. Gulick on a further ex tension of the due date of notes payable
  to him.
  
  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 $110,729 to these  individuals for  compensation due from
  years  prior to 2004,  and  loans  from Mr.  Keller in the  principal  amount of
  $7,500.  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 February  28,  2006,  financial  obligations  aggregating  $1,145,026  are
  secured  by  the  Company's  patents.   The  FLSA  applies  to  total  financial
  obligations of $512,113,  consisting of unpaid compensation of $400,867,  loans,
  excluding accrued interest,  from Mr. Keller of $67,000, and Company credit card
  obligations under personal financial  guaranties by Dr. Pouring of $44,246.  The
  SLSA applies to total  financial  obligations of $632,913,  consisting of unpaid
  compensation of $503,735,  loans,  excluding accrued interest, of $100,000 from
  Mr. Gulick and $17,500 from Mr. Keller,  and Company equipment lease obligations
  under  personal  financial  guaranties  by Dr.  Pouring  of  $11,678.  The total
  financial  obligations  covered by the SLSA from its  inception  in January 2005
  have been reduced by $200,607 through February 28, 2006.
  
  As described  below, the lawsuit by GECI has been amended recently to allege the
  same violations of Maryland  Corporation Law regarding the FLSA and SLSA against
  Sonex,  Dr.  Pouring and Mr.  Ponticas as  originally  filed in the Complaint by
  former Plaintiffs Emmet, Gulick and Martin.
  
  
  September 2005 action for alleged non-delivery of stock (litigation ongoing)
  
  In September 2005 Global Equity Consultants,  Inc. ("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 James A. Rose, II,  President of GECI. 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 October  2005 Sonex  filed an Answer  denying  the  allegations  in the 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 Jim Z.I.  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 2004 agreement. 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 asserts that there are material facts in dispute, and GECI is not entitled
  to summary  judgment  as a matter of law.  The Motion for  Summary  Judgment is
  still pending.
  
  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 Majer case detailed 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 the Majer  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 Majer case,  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  contends  the  execution  of the FLSA and the SLSA  represents  an
  "interested   director   transaction",   was  "procured  by  negligent  and/or
  intentional  concealment of material facts",  is "unfair and unreasonable to the
  corporation and should be vacated".
  
  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.
  
  
  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 tha t 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 eng age 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 March 31, 2005,  June 30, 2005 and September 30, 2005. 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.
  
  
  March 30, 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-033006.txt", "description": "CURRENT REPORT ON FORM 8-K", "secsgml_size_bytes": 21176}]
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": "06721529"}, "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): March 30, 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 March 30, 2006, the  Registrant  posted the following  announcement  on its
  website (www.sonexresearch.com):
  
  LAWSUITS UPDATE
  
  ANNAPOLIS,  MARYLAND, March 30, 2006 - SONEX RESEARCH, INC. (OTC SONX), provides
  the following  update on three legal  actions  filed against the Company  during
  2005. The first, a securities fraud action filed in February 2005,  continues in
  litigation.  A hearing  scheduled  for March 31, 2006 for oral  arguments on the
  Company's Motion to Dismiss has been canceled;  thus, the court will rule on the
  Motion without a hearing.  The second  action,  filed by local  shareholders  in
  April 2005  alleging  violations  of Maryland  Corporation  Law with respect to
  interested  director  transactions,  was just  dismissed.  The third,  an action
  alleging breach of contract for alleged  non-delivery of shares,  also continues
  in  litigation  and has been amended  recently to allege the same  violations of
  Maryland Corporation Law as in the second action.
  
  Management  believes that the allegations in the two ongoing actions are without
  merit and the  Company  will  prevail in court.  Dr.  Andrew A.  Pouring,  Sonex
  Chairman of the Board, CEO and President,  has expressed his  disappointment  at
  the negative impact  litigation has had on the progress of the Company,  and his
  dismay at the failure of the individuals  leading the two actions that remain in
  litigation to recognize the harm being done to the Company and its shareholders.
  
  The status of litigation is addressed below.
  
  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, current CFO, Secretary and director George E.
  Ponticas,  and Dr. Pouring.  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 James A. Rose, II, President of Global Equity  Consultants,  Inc.  ("GECI"),
  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. (GECI later filed its own lawsuit against the Company as
  explained below.)
  
  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  has been  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 the 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,  MD, Sidney L. Gulick,
  3d of Adelphi,  MD, and Robert Martin, Jr. of Myersville,  MD, 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  expects to reach  agreement
  shortly with Mr. Gulick on a further ex tension of the due date of notes payable
  to him.
  
  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 $110,729 to these  individuals for  compensation due from
  years  prior to 2004,  and  loans  from Mr.  Keller in the  principal  amount of
  $7,500.  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 February  28,  2006,  financial  obligations  aggregating  $1,145,026  are
  secured  by  the  Company's  patents.   The  FLSA  applies  to  total  financial
  obligations of $512,113,  consisting of unpaid compensation of $400,867,  loans,
  excluding accrued interest,  from Mr. Keller of $67,000, and Company credit card
  obligations under personal financial  guaranties by Dr. Pouring of $44,246.  The
  SLSA applies to total  financial  obligations of $632,913,  consisting of unpaid
  compensation of $503,735,  loans,  excluding accrued interest, of $100,000 from
  Mr. Gulick and $17,500 from Mr. Keller,  and Company equipment lease obligations
  under  personal  financial  guaranties  by Dr.  Pouring  of  $11,678.  The total
  financial  obligations  covered by the SLSA from its  inception  in January 2005
  have been reduced by $200,607 through February 28, 2006.
  
  As described  below, the lawsuit by GECI has been amended recently to allege the
  same violations of Maryland  Corporation Law regarding the FLSA and SLSA against
  Sonex,  Dr.  Pouring and Mr.  Ponticas as  originally  filed in the Complaint by
  former Plaintiffs Emmet, Gulick and Martin.
  
  September 2005 action for alleged non-delivery of stock (litigation ongoing)
  
  In September 2005 Global Equity Consultants,  Inc. ("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 James A. Rose, II,  President of GECI. 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 October  2005 Sonex  filed an Answer  denying  the  allegations  in the 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 Jim Z.I.  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 2004 agreement. 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 asserts that there are material facts in dispute, and GECI is not entitled
  to summary  judgment  as a matter of law.  The Motion for  Summary  Judgment is
  still pending.
  
  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 Majer case detailed 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 the Majer  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 Majer case,  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  contends  the  execution  of the FLSA and the SLSA  represents  an
  "interested   director   transaction",   was  "procured  by  negligent  and/or
  intentional  concealment of material facts",  is "unfair and unreasonable to the
  corporation and should be vacated".
  
  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.
  
  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 tha t 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 eng age 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 March 31, 2005,  June 30, 2005 and September 30, 2005. 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.
  
  March 30, 2006
  
  SONEX RESEARCH, INC.
  Registrant
  
  /s/ George E. Ponticas
  ----------------------
  George E. Ponticas
  Chief Financial Officer and Secretary