Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Ironridge denied yet again:
http://www.sec.gov/alj/aljorders/2015/ap-3228.pdf
Ironridge denied again
http://www.sec.gov/alj/aljorders/2015/ap-3060.pdf
Reality is all these mini Ironridge wins will likely be appealed after Ironridge is found to have improperly acted as a broker dealer
Ironridge will get what they deserve.
Perfect... December 7th. Same day as the attack on Pearl Harbor. SEC, bombs away!
Nice try Ironridge, Atlanta is a no go.
https://www.sec.gov/alj/aljorders/2015/ap-3049.pdf
Section 10(b) of Securities Exchange Act Claim Receives a Do-Wacko-Do
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/section-10b-securities-exchange-act-claim-receives-do-wacko-do
SEC will still bust Ironridge regardless of the court.
SEC Administrative Court Has A Constitutionality Problem
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has faced several setbacks already in the battle over its administrative court, but it suffered what could become a fatal blow Wednesday when a New York federal judge called the controversial forum "likely unconstitutional."
http://www.law360.com/securities/articles/690328?nl_pk=3f2bf93e-4917-4d61-b3b3-9eaa20cef37b&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=securities
federal judge on Tuesday granted Ironridge Global IV Ltd.'s request to toss a share manipulation lawsuit brought by a pharmaceutical supply chain company, holding there was no merit to a claim the equity investor manipulated the market to increase its share price
http://www.law360.com/california/articles/690364?nl_pk=d8549a11-3e16-4477-b3a2-982a860abbc7&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=California
Investment Firm Fends Off 'Bid-Whacking' Claims
A federal judge in Los Angeles threw out a "bid whacking" suit against investment firm Ironridge Global Partners on Tuesday, ruling there's no evidence the firm intentionally drove down the stock value of one of its investment companies.
http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202734622100/Investment-Firm-Fends-Off-BidWhacking-Claims?slreturn=20150714090240
Scrips claimed Ironridge engaged in "bid whacking," or selling shares at the bid price instead of demanding more money—a tactic that can lower future bids. That's a new issue for the courts, as there are no reported decisions discussing bid whacking and whether it is manipulative. Morrow wrote she will "assume, without deciding, that bid whacking could constitute manipulative conduct." But the court found Ironridge actually sold its Scrips shares at prices that were within an average range.
Scrips also tried to show Ironridge's leaders acted with an intent to defraud by arguing the investment firm has a pattern of destroying companies' stock values, citing a post by watchdog website "Scam Informer." But Morrow wrote Scrips didn't show those online posters were reliable.
IRonridge thinks that SEC would fabricate facts after their multi year investigation where they likely interviewed over 30 companies and countless investor complaints.
Instead of "LIFE" program they meant "LIE" program.
Here are IR denials to SEC cease and desist proceeding http://www.sec.gov/litigation/apdocuments/3-16649-event-10.pdf
SEC Slams Ironridge's Bid To Stay Suit Over In-House Court
http://www.law360.com/articles/685795
Great call by Ironridge. I guess that is what you when you are desperate.
Georgia court lacks jurisdiction. SEC likely to prevail
http://www.law360.com/articles/672494/sec-wants-stay-of-ga-judge-s-admin-court-injunction
Then is why Ironridge is afraid of the administrative law judge and likely civil penalties and disgorgement?
"The controversy is centered on a finance scheme pioneered by Ironridge that turns unpaid claims into equity and bypasses the requirement to hold restricted stock from trading."
"scheme" and "controversy" are the appropriate terminologies here. Schemes have an end.
Growth Capital Investor
http://www.growthcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Ironridge-Hits-Back-at-SEC-Action_Growth-Capital-Investor-072115.pdf
“This case reflects the SEC’s continued aggressive interpretations of the federal securities laws in the microcap space,” says Nicolas Morgan, a former SEC enforcement attorney and partner at Zaccaro Morgan. “The SEC does not allege fraud or investor harm. The SEC also does not challenge Ironridge Global’s innovative use of Securities Act Section 3(a)(10) as an exemption to registration to acquire shares from small public companies in settlement of litigation claims against the issuers. Indeed, all of the settlements appear to have been approved by courts in ‘fairness hearings’.
Couldn't agree more BlueRyan. Reality Is that Kirkland and friends will get what they deserve eventually. From Dragonox to moving out of the country and selling homes, they know what's coming to them. Imagine a business model based on lies and loopholes....I would want to be them right now
I don't wish bad on anybody but I hope for justice in this case. I saw what they did to NEWL and it's exactly what they are trying to do to MTVX. They have shown absolutely no mercy to investors of tickets they are owners of.
Time for that loophole they have taken advantage of to be closed. Also, that slight of hand in Feb of trying to transfer to Dragonox did not fool the SEC.
Time for justice to be served and the Kings of Toxic Lending to be kept from harming any other companies or investors.
And Ironridge claims they are long term investors yet have destroyed how many companies? Bottom line is they are nothing but crooks and will get what they deserve.
Kirkland somehow thinks he will write new deals if by some miracle Ironridge wins versus the SEC. Just like all the deals they have done in the past 18 months or so. No one in their right mind would do another deal with John C Kirkland.
Ironridge Hits Back at SEC Action on Section 3(a)10 Deals
https://www.scribd.com/doc/272942157/Ironridge-Hits-Back-at-SEC-Action-Growth-Capital-Investor-07-21-2015
Ironridge Global Partners is fighting back against a Securities and Exchange Commission suit to force the San Francisco-based firm to become a broker-dealer or halt its equity-for-liabilities swap deals. The controversy is centered on a finance scheme pioneered by Ironridge that turns unpaid claims into equity
From Ironridges filed complaint: "
ABSENT THIS COURT’S INTERVENTION, PLAINTIFFS WILL SUFFER SEVERE AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE"...
just like all the investors of companies Ironridge bought debts of for shares upon more shares.
Look at MTVX where they have dumped it to 0001 and held it there since Nov 2014. Trying to force an RS ? Maybe if IR showed any sign of backing off of the destruction of the pps of companies they're in the Sec would have mercy too.
Nah...
Ironridge needs a prayer all right.
Complaint in Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. v. SEC
https://securitiesdiary.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/complaint-in-ironridge-global-iv-ltd-v-sec.pdf
Federal Judge Halts SEC Administrative Proceeding On Constitutional Grounds
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanmaglich/2015/06/09/federal-judge-halts-sec-administrative-proceeding-on-constitutional-grounds/
New Challenge to In-House SEC Proceedings
http://www.law.com/sites/articles/2015/07/15/kilpatrick-lodges-new-challenge-to-in-house-sec-proceedings/
On Tuesday, lawyers at Kilpatrick sued the SEC again, this time on behalf of Ironridge Global IV Ltd., a microcap investment fund based in the British Virgin Islands
SEC Slapped With New Challenge To In-House Court
http://www.law360.com/articles/679501
Law360, New York -- The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was hit Tuesday with a fresh challenge to the constitutionality of its administrative law court — this time by a British Virgin Islands company that will have its claim heard by the same federal judge who froze another in-house SEC proceeding.
In a complaint filed in U.S. district court in Atlanta, microcap investor Ironridge Global IV Ltd. and its parent company Ironridge Global Partners LLC said they are seeking an order enjoining the SEC from continuing its administrative proceeding
John, way to further antagonize the SEC. Clearly you think you can't win in an Administrative Proceeding.
Kilpatrick Lodges New Challenge to In-House SEC Proceedings
http://www.litigationdaily.com/id=1202732273682/Kilpatrick-Lodges-New-Challenge-to-Inhouse-SEC-Proceedings?slreturn=20150617081931
On Tuesday, lawyers at the firm sued the SEC again, this time on behalf of Ironridge Global IV Ltd., a microcap investment fund based in the British Virgin Islands
Ironscum is trying to delay the inevitable
SEC Charges 34 Defendants in Microcap Market Manipulation Schemes
Like Ironridge, "The 34 defendants include six firms alleged to have acted as unregistered broker-dealers"
IronRidge next?
http://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-146.html
Another disentitlement dismissal in favor of Ironridge Global IV, Ltd.
http://socal-appellate.blogspot.com/2015/07/another-disentitlement-dismissal.html
Ironridge, issued here. Division 8 was apparently perturbed with party's failure to abide by a prohibitory injunction that was not stayed pending appeal.
Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. et al v. Securities and Exchange Commission
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/georgia/gandce/1:2015cv02512/218124
Plaintiff: Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. and Ironridge Global Partners, LLC
Defendant: Securities and Exchange Commission
SEC is coming after IRidge... IRidge's loan sharking days are numbered...
The days of lending $2mil and taking $12mil in 9 months are coming to a halt soon.
And, rightfully so...
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/34-75272.pdf
Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. Prevails Against Claims of Federal Securities Law Violations
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ironridge-global-iv-ltd-prevails-120000972.html
ScripsAmerica claimed that Ironridge had engaged in manipulative trading activity designed to artificially depress the value of its stock, and thereby yield grossly unfair levels of issuance of stock to Ironridge Global, and that further issuances could be in violation of securities law. In dismissing SCRC's appeal, the court noted that there "are state and federal provisions that exempt shares of common stock from registration requirements and other restrictions if transferred, with court approval, to satisfy a claim or debt" under Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act (15 U.S.C. § 77c, subd. (a)(10); Cal. Corp. Code, § 25017, subd. (f)(3).)
In addition to this most recent victory in state court, the federal court also previously issued a published legal decision in favor of Ironridge Global Partners, LLC on similar claims in ScripsAmerica, Inc. v. Ironridge Global LLC, 56 F. Supp. 3d 1121 (C.D. Cal. 2014). Ruling in favor of Ironridge, the United States District Court for the Central District of California noted that "Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933 exempts from registration any security which is issued in exchange for one or more bona fide outstanding securities, claims or property interests."
Equity Fund Wins Case Under Rarely Used Rule
http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202731044146/Equity-Fund-Wins-Case-Under-Rarely-Used-Rule#ixzz3ebKN2OMD
The Second District Court of Appeal took the unusual step Tuesday of dismissing a pharmaceutical distributor's appeal in light of the company's "flagrant disregard" of a lower court's order.
Los Angeles County Judge Rolf Treu had issued an order prohibiting ScripsAmerica Inc. from transferring stock to third parties until it had paid back its debt to equity investor Ironridge Global IV.
Ironridge Global sued ScripsAmerica in 2013 over a debt of $686,962. The parties settled less than a month later, and agreed ScripsAmerica would repay the debt by transferring stock to Ironridge.
In May 2014, Ironridge moved for an order enforcing the settlement, claiming ScripsAmerica had not upheld its end of the deal. The trial court ordered ScripsAmerica to issue Ironridge 1,646,008 shares of stock, and prohibited the company from transferring shares to any other entity until the Ironridge allotment had been paid.
Ironridge Global v. ScripsAmerica (Cal. Ct. App. - June 30, 2015)
http://calapp.blogspot.com/2015/06/ironridge-global-v-scripsamerica-cal-ct.html
The rule's fairly simple: Follow the trial court's injunction, or get it stayed. If you do otherwise, you may well find your appeal dismissed.
I'll add that today's opinion is also not a ringing endorsement of the appellant, ScripsAmerica, Inc. If it conducts its business like it litigates, you probably want to steer clear of the place.
Maybe that's why its stock is trading for six cents a share.
Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. Wins Appeal Against ScripsAmerica, Inc.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B256198.PDF
Where is factcheck14?
SEC TO IRONRIDGE: CEASE & DESIST
FINALLY, THE SHIP IS SINKING
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/34-75272.pdf
When are the cowards at Ironridge going to admit they are Dragonox
Followers
|
28
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
360
|
Created
|
07/10/14
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER IRONRIDGE LAWSUIT
July 2014 May 2014 Jan 2014 March2012 Jan2011 | NewLead Holdings (NEWL) Files Claims Against Ironridge; Seeks Damages in Excess of $125M ScripsAmerica Files Suit Against Ironridge Global IV,Ltd IntelliCell BioSciences Announces Favorable Ruling Against Ironridge Global IV, LTD., and TCA Global Credit Masterfund, LP , Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. v. Worthington Energy Unirac, Inc. v. Ironridge, Inc. et. al |
. |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |