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.
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.
All that's happened so far is an injunction to hold the funds. That was going to happen whether the lawyers showed up or not.
I think this will be settled or dropped before going to a trial, but you never know. But hey, if CANN somehow takes over GRNF, that would be good news, right? Nobody likes JC anyway. lolol
I need to correct you on some things.
First of all, GRNF is not a party to the lawsuit. This suit is between PBC, GRN Funds, Justin Costello and CANN. The shareholders here are not in jeopardy from any court proceeding in existence. If JC was somehow found liable in this case, he'd pay the judgement, personally (or GRN Funds would). It would not look good, but it would not legally affect GRNF in any way.
Second. GRN Funds accounts are not suspended. The court put a hold on CANN's account with PBC so that it may not be moved without CANN's consent pending a resolution to the case.
Third, The CEO's criminal trial is a completely unrelated event resulting from a personal issue. No company he owns is in jeopardy from this whatsoever.
Fourth, 2.8M was what? Taken? Pfff. Does CANN show a zero balance? Do we know? Transferring deposits happen every day in every bank. All we know is PBC did not pay the withdrawal request. The reasons why and were the money is (still in their account would be my guess.), is pure speculation at this point.
Fifth, the facts of this will come out at some point. I'm not worried about the outcome. Seriously. I'm not.
The assets of GRN Funds LLC are not frozen, unless I missed something. There would be no legal basis to do that. The TRO/injunction only applies to the assets relating to the PBC allegations. The order says those funds may not be touched without CANN's consent, as expected.
Should be some interesting moves soon.
Right. Because CEO's do that all the time. I'm sure that correct.
He bought controlling interest of the 11 companies he owns (that we know of) from the share selling scheme too, I assume? Oh wait...
Who owns PBC? GRN Funds, LLC., right? Are you saying it's illegal for the corporate owner to access cash from it's subsidiary?
Once a client deposits money, is it traceable like that? Or does the bank get to move general deposits to it's investment accounts, loan to other banks, and the such? I think they can.
Can you show me the part of the agreement that says that? Because it's not in the documents I read.
Pretty sure they were new or newly leased McLarens, but whatever.
He sold, what? 5M shares? Doesn't he and another guy own like 70M each or something? How does JC come to profit from those shares?
Explain. You think the shareholder gave him part of his profits in a duffle bag full of cash or diamonds or something? There's no evidence of what you allege.
Costello hasn't sold any shares. Costello has not profited one dime from buying this shell that I can tell. In fact, he's loaned the company millions of his own money to operate until such time the shell is filled with revenue generating entities. Of which, there are many.
I'm pretty sure the judge has only heard once side of the argument thus far. We DO NOT know this is the entirety of what happened. Nor does the judge.
I think the answer is 2. One old, one not. Considering 1/3 of the US population has been arrested at least once before they're 35, that's not especially shocking.
Not sure. I've read 12 months after acquiring the shell or 12 months after the merger is completed with an 8k. My guess is after the merger. But I'm not expert by any means.
It's irrelevant. He doesn't own enough shares to sell anything significant without giving up majority control of the company. There is zero chance he's selling shares at this point, if that's what you're worried about.
It'd be fun if all the minority stockholders got a vote in the day to day operations though. lol.
You completely missed my point. You misuse the term "guilty". That should only be used in criminal cases since their standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. It cannot ever be used in civil cases since they do not have the same standard. They only use a preponderance of evidence (simple majority) to determine liability.
The word prayer never entered into what I'm discussing, other than to quote the plaintiff.
Dude, you don't get listed as a top 100 trial lawyer for the past five years, or Super Lawyer 2020 for no reason.
https://lawyers.norml.org/washington/aaron-a-pelley-42000507
Maybe they can? I don't know. We'll at least get a hint of that next week.
We can wade through that complicated scenario if it happens. We're a long way from determining that. I'd at least want to see GRN's counter to the allegations. There will be one, and it could very well result in dismissal.
Or not. Who knows?
OR, they could just settle the suit and avoid the years long spectacle. That's the primary goal of most civil suits to large companies.
Why are you hung up on his day trading 2M? It's irrelevant to GRN or anything, really. He has plenty of other assets, like the frozen CANN funds, if that's your concern.
Defaults are only given to no shows. Whether the case has merit or not (and that is in dispute from what I've read), GRN does have lawyers on retainer that can show up for the injunction hearing. Sorry, I shouldn't say on retainer. On staff. Aaron Pelly is one of the best.
At that point a lot of different things could happen.
I would be shocked if GRN allows the judge to reach a default verdict. It's not going to happen.
A plaintiff can pray all he wants, that does not make the defendant guilty.
I'm just trying to educate people on the correct terms to use for civil cases.
It's either liable or not liable, determined by a simple majority of jurors, or the judge if there's not a jury trial. Guilt is not determined in civil cases, since there is no allegation of a crime.
Criminal cases determine guilt or innocence by a unanimous vote. I emphasize this, because to use these terms incorrectly could give the wrong impression of the proceedings here.
LOL this is a civil case, not criminal. There is no guilty charge. There's no charges at all.
Looks like stop sign is about to be removed. Attorney letter filed. No longer a shell company.
I'm a fan of this comment. :) Very nice.
Come on. You think CANN is his only client? Or PBC is his only source of revenue? Nah. I mean jeez, that's just unrealistic hyperbole. He probably has $12.5k in his sock drawer. lol.
PBC is real. You can stop denying that. Soulshine is real. Indisputable. GRN Funds owns the 11 companies or have equity stakes in them. Justin Costello is the sole owner of GRN Funds. GRN Funds bought the GRNF shell. Again, all indisputable.
Why is it such a reach to conclude he's taking those companies public as he stated? The only thing that could possibly be disputable is the value of the companies he owns. And THAT will be disclosed very soon, IMO.
If I wasn't clear PBC is what you like to call the weed bank.
I don't understand these share selling scheme claims. Who is selling shares? Pumpers? Bashers? So what? IRRELVEVANT. It happens every day with dozens of tickers. Justin Costello has sold how many? None, right? How does that help him?
You don't think we saw a short squeeze yesterday? Of course there was, and it was glorious. lol
It went up 110%. Some profit taking is expected. There's a lot of day traders on this. Don't read too much into it.
I guarantee you this didn't cause the bump today. It would have been posted everywhere, as it is now.
If you talked to the lawyer, I'll take your word for it. Otherwise, we just have opposing opinion on the matter. Much like everything else on posted on this board.
Depends if the judge had all the facts. Does he? Would CANN provide anything exculpatory at this stage? Is that why the lawyers quit?
Lawyers can write a pretty good story. That's their job. There is no factual basis of anything until discovery and/or trial and the defendant gets to actually, you know, defend himself.
OK, so we don't know which occurred. I'll concede that.
But it is pretty rare to switch firms in the middle of a case. Most of the reasons for withdrawal are based on client issues. Especially #4:
4. The client insists upon advancing a frivolous claim.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=155044502
Words have meaning in the legal world.
You don't get it. This was not CANN's decision. Their lawyers quit them. CANN changed representation from an established firm to a 1 month old firm. Sure, they could be better...
Why would Rosen quit? Could it be they have no case and actually have principles to not pursue it?