I already know what the judges will decide. I already called it every single step of the way so far.
Durand Wednesday, 07/13/16 06:25:42 PM
Re: james885 post# 41329
Post #
41331
of 44792 Go
There's no burden at all on KBM lawyer's now since HJOE attorneys already blew it. They just went on and on how the conversion discount is usury interest and didn't cite a single precedent. That's because there aren't any. It's HJOE's motion that's pretty weak. They have no prayer in hell of winning with that inane argument.
And the judge said: Defendants present virtually no factual support for their motion, and the tangled web of contentions and counter-contentions render the record impervious to reasoned review.
Durand Wednesday, 07/13/16 04:30:14 PM
Re: james885 post# 41327
Post #
41328
of 44792 Go
So their only argument is that the 45% discount is usurious? Yeah, good luck with that. That's just a simple debt to equity conversion at a discount that happens all the time with startups. Even successful companies like Google sold stock at a 25% discount to their valuation. What an incredibly dumb argument. Looks like they found the dumbest lawyers in the country to represent them but I would expect nothing less from Veal. These morons are going to be laughed out of court
The judge said: These descriptors (which resemble closing argument rather than summary judgment briefing) reflect a fundamental misapprehension of the requisites for the relief sought
Durand Wednesday, 07/13/16 11:37:04 AM
Re: bythemills post# 41323
Post #
41324
of 44792 Go
I wonder how HJOE plans on explaining to the Judge exactly why they previously signed 20+ notes with 12 different toxic lenders, including 4 previous notes with KBM, when all those notes had virtually identical terms as the KBM note they now claim is usurious? And how are they going to explain the fact that they allowed every single one of these notes to be converted into shares knowing that these conversions would cause "damage to the Defendants in having to sell their stock at a 45% discount and having to suffer the consequences of the market being flooded with more stock causing the stock price to plummet after Plaintiff has made its enormous profits."
The Judge said: Notably, however, there appears to be no dispute that defendants entered four additional, nearly identical transactions with plaintiff during a two-year period.
The Judge literally said everything I posted months ago. It's almost like he read all my posts and then rewrote them in typical dry legalese
