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.
The SEC routinely brings actions against people outside the United States. They’re a civil enforcement agency so they only need to serve a defendant with a Summons and Complaint to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant the same as any other civil plaintiff.
According to the most recent filing, "The Series B preferred shares have a 10,000:1 conversion and voting rights." - See pg. 4, Annual Report for the year ending 12/31/23.
FYI- SEC enforcement actions are also civil cases so there is no extradition involved.
Correct, a minimum of 7 weeks from the start of publication until George can submit a motion for a default judgment.
The most optimistic timeline, if they commenced publication yesterday, would mean that service by publication would be complete by the last week in May. The defendants would then have 3 weeks to answer before they are considered in default. That means that George would be able to move for a default judgment in mid-June. This would be an extremely aggressive timeline so I think a more realistic timeline would have share cancellations complete in the beginning of July.
This statement is completely incorrect. A name change doesn’t erase a corporation’s past and make them a completely new entity. If that was the case, any time a corporation was sued they would change their name and escape any liability.
Getting closer but it’s 4 weeks to complete service by publication then the defendants will have approximately 3 weeks to answer before George can move for a default judgment.
There’s no legal reason that the merger would have to wait until the share cancellations are complete though so that could come at any time.
Yes, that's how litigation works. If you can't serve a defendant by one of the methods of service listed in the statute (personal service, substituted service, etc.) then you need to go back to the Court and ask to be able to serve the defendant via an alternative method such as publication. This has not been done yet, accordingly, Carlin's share can't be canceled until George goes back to Court and asks to be able to use alternative service. At that point, if the Court allows alternative service, Carlin can be served by whatever method the Court authorizes. The Court can then obtain jurisdiction over him and if he fails to answer at that point, George can submit a default judgment. We are still a very long way from that.
Again, I would like to know what the "fallacies" or "misrepresentations" that you think I'm spreading are. I would also like to know how you propose Paul Carlins shares can be canceled without George requesting alternative service from the Court or attempting to serve him again via personal service. A court cannot issue relief against a defendant that they don't have jurisdiction over.
Correct. As I said, Paul Carlins shares can't be canceled at this time because he was never served with the Summons and Complaint.
Why don't you try again?
Name one.
No shares were canceled. 4 of the defendants were dismissed from the case (Phil Bradford, Jeffrey Cohen, M Pamela Garton, and Stuart Lane), 4 of the Defendants were never served (Robert Sullivan, Craig Waltz, Koening Grandchildren Trust and Paul Carlin), only 2 defendants were served and are still in the case (Eastern Asia Group Limited and David Butkis). Potentially, George can submit a motion for a default judgment against Eastern Asia Group Limited and David Butkis. These are the only 2 defendants whose shares can possibly be canceled at this time.
No. You can't use one of the alternative methods of service under Rule 4.4 without a Court Order. So, George would need to submit a motion to the Court first requesting to use an alternative method of service before he could resort to that.
How do you think the shares are going to be canceled for Paul Carlin, Koening Grandchildren Trust, Craig Waltz and Robert Sullivan when they weren't served with the Summons and Complaint? The other defendants probably won't answer and a motion for a default judgment can be submitted to cancel the shares, however, for the other defendants that I listed, they will need to be served before their shares can be canceled.
Paul Carlin was never served with the Summons and Complaint so the Court doesn't have jurisdiction over him yet and his shares can't be canceled at this time. If they are unable to serve him they would have to apply to the Court to serve him via alternative methods. See, Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4.4.
It's 21 days from when they were served with the Summons and Complaint and none of us know when/if the defendants were served. So we really don't know if they are past the deadline or if they still have time to file an answer.
First, all the defendants will need to be served and then there time to answer will start running.
How do you not see that we are saying two very different things regarding the tollling of the Statute of Limitations (hereinafter "SOL"). I am saying that the SOL is tolled until the fraud is discovered. You are saying that the discovery of the fraud is what starts the tolling of the SOL. Your interpretation would mean that the SOL is essentially meaningless because you could discover fraud and wait 100 years to commence an action.
No, the case has to be fully briefed by both sides and have possible oral argument before it is ruled on by the Court.
Your understanding of the statute of limitations and tolling is incorrect. The statute of limitations starts running upon the breach of fiduciary duty, it is tolled, however, until after the breach has been discovered or until it would have been discovered by a reasonable person.
Statute of limitations is an affirmative defense (at least it is in NY where I am admitted to practice) and would have to be pled by Calasse's attorneys in their answer or it is waived. So it is possible that this action could continue despite the running of the Statute of Limitations if Calasse's attorneys screw up as badly as they did in the trial Court.
The other problem with the Breach of Fiduciary duty case is that Sharp has to serve Calasse with the Summons and Compliant. His lawyers can accept service, however, they shouldn't and the other case doesn't automatically give the Court jurisdiction over Calasse for this new case.
The whole purpose of the breach of fiduciary duty case is to pressure Calasse on the appeal so these issues probably don't matter to Sharp or his attorneys.
There is no discovery in an appeal. The only evidence before the Appellate Court will be the record from the lower court and whether or not the trial court judge erred in applying the law in his decision.
I tend to agree with you on this one however George did give himself some wiggle room in the July 8 press release when he said “While the company is confident that the rulings will be upheld, it is unlikely that the company can enter into any acquisition or reverse merger agreement during the course of this litigation. As such, no such transactions can be deemed to be pending.”
An appeal is not a new trial. That part of the decision saying that there is no grounds for a new trial was denying the motion for reconsideration. The next sentence is certifying the decision as final so that it can be appealed.
They can appeal the decision. Callasse's lawyers were asking that the decision be certified as final so that they could appeal it. That part of the motion was granted. The reason for this is that you can't appeal a non-final determination. Now that it has been certified as final, they can appeal.
That being said, they are even less likely to be successful on an appeal then they were on this motion for reconsideration. On the appeal they will not be able to introduce any new evidence like they did on the motion for reconsideration and will only be able to argue that the Judge's original decision was wrong. There is almost no chance that they will be successful with that. I can't image that Callasse's lawyers would do the appeal on a contingency and if he had to pay them hourly he would just be throwing good money after bad on an appeal that has virtually no chance of success.
Did you even read the motion? They can't appeal yet because the Order on the Motion to Cancel is interlocutory and as a result can't be appealed yet. That is why in the event the that the judge doesn't grant their motion for reconsideration they have requested that the decision be marked as final so that they can take an appeal.
On a motion for reconsideration new evidence is allowed and is actually one of the grounds for reconsideration.
You are correct
This is not at all true. The part that you are quoting merely means that the filing of the motion doesn't effect the judgment that was previously entered (ie. it doesn't act as a TRO preventing the enforcement of the judgment pending a determination of the motion). If the motion is granted it would reverse the original decision cancelling the shares.
That being said, I don't think they will be successful with this motion. The "new evidence" that they are attempting to introduce is not actually new evidence. It was evidence that was available to the old attorney, she just failed to use it.
It's not being appealed, they have filed a motion for reconsideration. It's like an appeal but rather than being made to an appellate court you are asking the judge that made the original decision to change his/or her decision. It is generally based upon new information or a change in the law. I have skimmed the entire 70 page filing and Calasse's new attorneys are basically blaming his old attorney for not presenting evidence that Calasse provided showing that he owned the shares.
Biden is supposed to announce a ban on Russian energy imports at 10:45 ET. If it doesn't hit $3 before then it will immediately after the announcement.
If it wasn't for the circuit breakers that keep halting trading and killing the momentum we'd probably be at $3 already.
This one's going nuts today.
Just went over $3.00.
Looks like this is gapping up this morning. We already have a T-Trade at .21 and .20.
Nice green day today.