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.
NewLead JMEG CEO files for bankruptcy ahead of court deposition
http://splash247.com/newlead-jmeg-ceo-files-for-bankruptcy-ahead-of-court-deposition/
Won't be long before Zolotas falls in behind him... But we all know it is another scam by those scam artists. They are protecting themselves against the lawsuit that Serge Turko and Transasia brought against them and the award of $6,200,000 to Transasia!
It won't help, but it will certainly delay things... Zolotas and Berkowitz, two common criminals!
Wake up! You're dreaming... LOL
Looks like NEWL gained another bag holder... Such a shame!
NewLead announces failed coal mine deal ahead of CEO’s deposition
http://splash247.com/newlead-announces-failed-coal-mine-deal-ahead-of-ceos-deposition/
Zolotas will be deposed in NYC today and tomorrow... And he admits now that it never happened? Funny how that works!
SUPER SCAM ALERT!
No company could ever make so many bad toxic financing decisions like Zolotas has made for $NEWL without there being something in it for himself... He doesn't care how many traders and investors he has destroyed!
Trying to start a false rumor, eh! The fact is, no one will ever buy them out, unless of course it is another one of the many shell companies that this scam company uses to hide from creditors!
Come to think of it, Zolotas could cook up a good story here! Put out a PR that such and such company (really a shell company they have) is buying them out for $3b. Even though, no money would trade hands, and the same scammers would still be running things, namely Zolotas and Berkowitz!
Nope, and as far as I am concerned, this scam $NEWL was finished long ago!
Ingrid Zerbe sold 163,100 shares at $0.50
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1098880/000106299315004790/xslF345X03/form4.xml
Horst Zerbe sold 36,900 shares at $0.50
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1098880/000106299315004792/xslF345X03/form4.xml
The percentage change is amazing when a garbage grey market sub penny stock gains 5/100ths of a penny isn't it? Easier to get in than out though! This scam will rip you to shreds...
$NEWL is almost at triple sub penny!
If I were still the mod here, I would remove your post... But seeing as how I am not, feel free to "suck" away!
$IGXT was downgraded to "HOLD" by Zacks... http://www.dakotafinancialnews.com/zacks-lowers-intelgenx-technologies-corp-to-hold-igxt/267986/
IntelGenx Technologies (OTCQX:IGXT) appoints Andre Godin as EVP and Chief Financial Officer effective immediately. Previously, he was CEO and CFO of Neptune Technologies & Bioresources.
http://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/16362/IntelGenx-Appoints-Andre-Godin-as-New-Executive-VicePresident-and-Chief-Financial-Officer#.Va1qPPnkzyE
I'd be willing to bet that Hugh Cleland was instrumental in bringing Andre Godin on board! Personally, I don't know anything about the guy though...
A lot of people think that the Transasia vs. $NEWL lawsuit is over because $NEWL admitted that it breached the contract, but it is far from over.
That was just count 1. There are 3 more counts!
Count 1 "Breach of Contract Against Newlead JMEG" Settled...
Newlead JMEG admits they breached the contract. Partial summary judgement has been awarded to Transasia.
Count 2 "Common Law Fraud and Fraudulent Inducement Against All Defendants" Pending...
This one should be easy! Anyone who has done their due diligence knows that Newlead Holdings is a scam company that just steals from it's
shareholders without any regard. Zolotas and Berkowitz are master manipulators when it comes to financial schemes! It was even mentioned
in a email between Zolotas and Turko that are now part of court documents!
Count 3 "Civil Conspiracy Against Zolotas and Berkowitz" Pending...
The definition of Civil Conspiracy is "A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal
rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective." I don't understand enough about this to comment on it.
Count 4 "Alter Ego" Pending...
This one is exciting because it will show how Zolotas and Berkowitz move cash and assets between Newlead Holdings and all of it's shell
companies to avoid creditors and "cook" the books to prop up their financial statements.
NewLead JMEG concedes liability in breach of contract litigation
July 9th, 2015 Holly Birkett
Athens: After a long-running court case, NewLead JMEG has filed a stipulation of liability in the breach of contract court case brought by London-based TransAsia Commodities, which is seeking $6.2m in compensation.
NewLead JMEG has conceded that it did breach the terms of the coal purchase agreement by failing to deliver the 110,000 tonnes of coal to TransAsia. The defendant filed a stipulation of liability for breach of contract to the Supreme Court of the County of New York on Thursday.
NewLead JMEG has also withdrawn its first and second counterclaims against TransAsia.
The first counterclaim alleged that the trader made false representations in an attempt to defraud the mining company by inducing it to sign the coal purchase agreement.
The second alleged that TransAsia breached the purchase agreement by failing to supply a letter of credit from its bank, and that the trader supplied a forged letter of credit from another bank to NewLead JMEG.
The stipulation deals with count 1 of TransAsia’s complaint, which was filed to the court in December 2013.
The other three counts in the complaint accuse the defendants NewLead Holdings, its CEO Michael Zolotas, coal mining subsidiary NewLead JMEG and its chief executive Jan Berkowitz of deliberately making misrepresentations about their ownership of coal mining assets and ability to fulfil sales contracts.
In its complaint, the plaintiff claims the defendants made these misrepresentations in order to inflate NewLead Holdings’ share price and prevent it being delisted from the NASDAQ stock exchange, and to obtain credit from banks. The defendants have denied these allegations in full.
In previous hearings, the plaintiff has called for a jury trial with which to deal with these allegations. TransAsia’s counsel was unavailable for comment at the time of writing.
http://splash247.com/newlead-jmeg-concedes-liability-in-breach-of-contract-litigation/
The fact that $NEWL garbage closed up today proves the manipulation and the fact that Zolotas is behind the manipulation! It should have stayed down huge like every other shipping company, but it closes up 28%... LOL what a joke!
Greek shipping stocks hammered on Wall Street
New York: With the current chaos surrounding a Greek default and possible exit from the Eurozone, Greek shipowning stocks have taken a beating in US markets this morning.
Compounding the misery, a higher tonnage tax has been demanded by Greece’s creditors as is the phasing-out of special tax allowances for Greek owners.
Within an hour of the markets opening, most Greek shipowning stocks are being outperformed by the market (down 1.2%) with a few exceptions including Eagle Bulk, Box Ships and Baltic Trading all down less than a percent.
The biggest loser is NewLead Holdings, down an astonishing 20%, their cause not helped by an ongoing legal case brought by TransAsia Commodities. Other “biggest losers” are Globus Maritime down 14.5%, FreeSeas down 8.3%, DryShips down 7.4%, Tsakos Energy Navigation down 7% and Seanergy Maritime Holdings down 6.7%.
Evangelos Pistiolis-led Top Ships is the big winner today so far, with the company’s share price up nearly 2%, one of only a handful of shipping stocks not to retreat in a bad day on Wall Street so far.
http://splash247.com/greek-shipping-stocks-hammered-on-wall-street/
You go ahead, we'll wait right here :)
It actually hit a low of $0.0015 today!
It should have happened a long time ago! Look at my last post, I updated it with images of what the Judge was saying in the court documents...
More on the con games of $NEWL manifests itself in Court Document 324
I. Preliminary Statement
Reed Smith’s “Emergency” motion to withdraw and stay this action should be denied because it is a transparent ploy to delay these proceedings and frustrate the discovery process. It is no coincidence that despite Reed Smith’s admission that “a portion of [the unpaid fees] has been outstanding since August, 2014”, (See Emergency Affirmation in Support of Order to Show Cause of Evan Farber, “Farber Aff.” at Para. 4), Reed Smith waited to file its motion to withdraw until after this Court ordered individual Defendants Zolotas and Berkowitz to appear in New York for their depositions no later than July 15, 2015.1 It is also no coincidence that Reed Smith’s motion to withdraw comes days after TransAsia sent Reed Smith a Rule 130 - 1.1 letter, highlighting the frivolous nature of Defendants’ counterclaims, and threatening sanctions unless those counterclaims were withdrawn within 7 days. See Letter dated May 29, 2015, attached as Exhibit A. The only “emergency” here is that Defendants have run out of other delay tactics and are now playing the withdrawal of counsel card, all to avoid being questioned under oath and answering for their fraud. Accordingly, Reed Smith’s bad faith, strategically timed withdrawal motion should be denied. Reed Smith’s request for leave to withdraw is based entirely on the factual averments of the Farber Affirmation. But that sworn affirmation is insufficient to justify Reed Smith’s withdrawal, and serves only to raise serious questions about what is really going on here.
First, why has a situation that has, according to Mr. Farber, festered for ten months suddenly become an “emergency”? How can Reed Smith simultaneously aver that they are not being paid, while vaguely acknowledging elsewhere in the Farber Affirmation that “some payments” and “partial payments” have been received from Defendants since January 2015. Reed Smith’s withdrawal motion is notably silent as to the amounts or dates of these “partial payments” and attaches no correspondence at all with Defendants on the topic of fees. Second, the Farber Affirmation alleges that Reed Smith has unsuccessfully sought the Defendants’ consent to withdraw as counsel of record (Farber Aff., at Para. 8). But this sworn averment has already been contradicted by the Defendants themselves, whose spokesperson informed a reporter for an on-line publication that “NewLead together with Reed Smith decided that finding an alternative less expensive legal firm was the best way forward for both parties. Third, and of great importance, the Farber Affirmation seeks a retaining lien on the case file until payment of their fees is tendered. (See Farber Aff., at Para. 10) Of course, allowing Reed Smith to have a retaining lien until such time as they are paid in full is but one more way for NewLead to ensure that this case enters an indefinite state of suspended animation. All they need do is not pay Reed Smith, and no new firm (assuming, arguendo, that they actually intend to ever retain new counsel) will ever be ready to proceed with the defense of this case. The perfect Catch - 22! Fourth, that Reed Smith’s motion to withdraw is tactical is further established by the incontrovertible fact that Defendants’ have the means to pay Reed Smith. The individual defendants, Zolotas and Berkowitz, hold positions with NewLead entities that pay them millions of dollars a year. According to an employment agreement Defendant Zolotas has with Defendant NewLead Holdings, Ltd. dated January 1, 2013 and effective through 2018, Zolotas earns a “base salary” of $1.5 million per year, plus an aggregate annual bonus of $4.5 million. See Employment Agreement of Michael Zolotas, attached as Exhibit “D”. Under the terms of his employment agreement with Defendant NewLead JMEG, dated April 19, 2012, Berkowitz is paid a salary of $600,000 per year, through 2022. Berkowitz is also eligible for a bonus of 150% of that amount, or an additional $900,000 per year. See Employment Agreement of Jan Berkowitz, attached as Exhibit “E”. In short, Zolotas and Berkowitz both have the means to pay Defendants’ legal bills, as does Defendant NewLead Holdings. Specifically, on June 1, 2015, a few days before Reed Smith filed its motion to withdraw, NewLead Holdings, in a presentation in California delivered by Defendant Zolotas, held itself out as a profitable shipping entity that currently owns and operates at least ten (10) ocean going vessels. The presentation boasts of Defendant NewLead Holdings’ “Cash flow stability” and its “Sustainable revenues” (Ex. F, at 7); it touts its “long lasting commercial relationships with leading dry bulk charters” (id. at 8); and highlights its growth and company leadership experience (id. at 27–33). Indeed, NewLead Holdings intends in 2015 to “double its fleet to 20 vessels” under its “diversified business model across two major shipping sectors[.]” Id. at 35. Together, these statements made by and on behalf of Defendants belie any contention by Reed Smith or the Defendants that they lack the wherewithal to pay Reed Smith. This begs thequestion; why have they chosen to not pay their lawyers in full? Of course, the only way to know this for certain is to hear directly from the Principals of the Defendants, Mr. Zolotas and Mr. Berkowitz, both of whom, for purposes of this motion, have been glaringly silent. For that reason, TransAsia respectfully requests that unless this Court denies Reed Smith’s Motion outright, (which is fully justified under these circumstances) any decision on the withdrawal motion should be held in abeyance pending an in-person appearance by Mr. Zolotas and Mr.
Berkowitz, at which time they can be questioned under oath about why they have not paid Reed Smith in full. At the same time, the Court can also inquire about statements in the public filings of Defendant NewLead Holdings, indicating that the company maintains Directors & Officers Insurance coverage, which may pay the costs of defense and indemnity for the type of claims
being asserted in this case. Defendants can also be questioned at that time about whether they continue to employ Reed Smith on several other pending matters and ongoing litigations. The
Court can also inquire as to how many New York firms the Defendants currently employ and whether any of those law firms have sought to withdraw for non-payment of fees.
TransAsia emphasizes that Reed Smith’s motion to withdraw is wholly devoid of any evidentiary support, and thus cannot meet the standard applicable on a motion to withdraw. Beyond the bare assertion that Defendants have paid some, but not all, fees incurred by Defendants since August of 2014, the motion contains no supporting documentation regarding the amounts outstanding, Reed Smith’s collection efforts, and the hardship Reed Smith is allegedly suffering. Mere failure to pay some portion of Reed Smith’s fees, without more, is insufficient for withdrawal under New York law. Finally, TransAsia urges this Court to bear in mind the fact that Defendants’ breach of contract and fraud destroyed TransAsia’s business and forced it into administration proceedings in the United Kingdom. TransAsia has been litigating this action for eighteen (18) months, confronting at every turn Defendants’ strategy to delay the discovery process, in what is clearly the hope of bleeding TransAsia dry. Any further delay will be highly prejudicial to TransAsia. A stay on the eve of Defendants’ depositions will indefinitely delay discovery and the resolution of this matter, which has already been pending for eighteen months without a single party deposition having occurred. In this case, more than most, the adage that “justice delayed is justice denied” is completely applicable.
II. Argument and Authorities
New York CPLR § 321(b) permits counsel to withdraw with consent of the client or by order of the Court. As noted in the Farber Affirmation, the Defendants in this case have not indicated to this Court that they consent to Reed Smith’s withdrawal. See Mot. to Withdraw and Stay ¶ 8 (Reed Smith emailed Defendants that it planned “to withdraw as counsel of record, and seeking [Defendants’] consent to the same, which was not provided.”). Consequently, withdrawal is only permissible by this Court’s order. See N.Y. CPLR § 321(b). As noted above, the only statement by Defendants is what their spokesperson told a reporter – a statement which contradicts the Farber Affirmation. Under New York law, in order to terminate its representation of Defendants, Reed Smith must “make a showing of good or sufficient cause and reasonable notice.” Kaufman v. Kaufman, 880 N.Y.S.2d 491, 491 (1st Dep't 2009) (quoting George v. George, 629 N.Y.S.2d 602 (4th Dep’t 1995)). “The mere fact that a client fails to pay an attorney for services rendered does not, without more, entitle the attorney to withdraw.” Id. (citations omitted); George v. George, 629 N.Y.S.2d 602, 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1995); Jessamy v Doran Group, 959 N.Y.S.2d 89 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012); Klein v. Klein, 800 N.Y.S.2d 348 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005). Moreover, the record must establish that the basis for withdrawal, the client’s conduct, renders it unreasonably difficult for counsel to carry out his employment effectively. Cashdan v. Cashdan, 663 N.Y.S.2d 271, 272 (2d Dep't 1997). It is within the Court’s sound discretion to grant a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Haskell v. Haskell, 586 N.Y.S.2d 630, 630–31 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1992); Jessamy v Doran Group, 959 N.Y.S.2d 89 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012). Courts applying New York law have denied motions to withdraw where, as here, the effect of a withdrawal would improperly delay discovery. In SEC v. Gib. Global Secs., Inc., No. 13 Civ. 2575 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2015), a case in the Southern District applying New York law to decide a motion to withdraw as counsel, the court held as follows:
Here, however, it is clear that DOR's withdrawal would further delay—perhaps indefinitely—the already overdue production of documents and the scheduling of the defendants' depositions. Indeed, the withdrawal appears to be designed for that purpose. The defendants and their counsel have already delayed the depositions of Mr. Davis and Gibraltar by failing to cooperate with the SEC regarding scheduling. DOR then filed this motion the day before the defendants were required to produce documents pursuant to my order, without requesting an extension of time to produce such documents or notifying the SEC that they would not be timely produced. Mr. Davis professes that he does not believe he is obligated to engage with the litigation, that he does not intend to do so, and that he will not hire replacement counsel. The SEC's efforts to obtain discovery and testimony would be further frustrated in the event of withdrawal because they
have no means of communicating directly with Mr. Davis or Gibraltar. It would be inappropriate to reward these dilatory tactics and Mr. Davis' disregard for the court's authority by granting the withdrawal motion at this time, thereby significantly disrupting the prosecution of both Gibraltar and Carrillo Huettel. See SEC v. Great American Technologies, Inc., No. 07 Civ. 10694, 2009 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 117589, 2009 WL 4885153, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2009) (denying motion to withdraw where party in question had disobeyed discovery orders and willfully delayed scheduling of deposition, finding withdrawal would "necessarily lead to further delays in the completion of th[e] case"); Small v. Regalbuto, No. 06 CV 1721, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55033, 2009 WL 1911827, at *2 (N.D. Ohio June 29, 2009) (denying motion to withdraw that appeared to be "a delaying tactic to again avoid providing the discovery" that the defendant had already "substantial[ly] delay[ed]" in case where counsel was fired); Towns v. Morris, 50 F.3d 8, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 11455 (Table) [published in full-text format at 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 5798 at *7] (4th Cir. 1995) (finding denial of withdrawal motion pending compliance with discovery obligations in case where attorney was discharged "consistent with the court's responsibility to fairly and effectively administer the litigation").
Conclusion
In light of the disruption DOR's withdrawal would cause under the present circumstances, DOR's motion is denied without prejudice to any future application made upon a showing that: (1) Gibraltar and Mr. Davis have produced the required discovery, (2) Mr. Davis and Gibraltar's witnesses have appeared for deposition, and (3) the SEC has been provided with Mr. Davis' e-mail address, phone number, and physical address, as well as a physical address at which Gibraltar may be served.” SEC v. Gib. Global Secs., Inc., No. 13 Civ. 2575, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60937, *8–12 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2015) (internal record citations omitted). Here, there can be no doubt that the Reed Smith motion to withdraw is a delaying tactic to avoid providing discovery; the depositions of Defendants Zolotas and Berkowitz. Like the court in SEC v. Gib. Global Securities, supra, this Court has the discretion to fashion an Order denying the Motion to Withdraw without prejudice to a future application after Messrs. Zolotas and Berkowitz have been deposed. All of the circumstances outlined above bespeak a carefully choreographed tactical move
designed to stop this case in its tracks at the most critical point in the discovery process. In fact, the limited information supplied by Reed Smith demonstrates that payments by Defendants were ongoing (see Mot. to Withdraw and Stay ¶¶ 5–6), making withdrawal inappropriate. See, e.g., Cashdan, 663 N.Y.S.2d at 272 (denying withdrawal motion because “Although counsel has asserted that the defendant refuses to pay her legal fees, the record demonstrates that the defendant was making regular installment payments to counsel toward her balance”). While the
client in the Cashdan case asserted that the law firm had agreed to such an arrangement, Defendants’ failure to consent to Reed Smith’s withdrawal may indicate that an agreement to pay
Reed Smith’s fees in installments does exist. In any event, Reed Smith’s motion to withdraw lacks any evidentiary basis beyond bare, unsupported allegations of Defendants’ failure to pay.
Under New York law, this is not sufficient, fails to meet the applicable standard, and in and of itself warrants a denial of the motion. Based on the foregoing, TransAsia respectfully requests that this Court deny Reed Smith’s motion to withdraw and for a stay. In the alternative, if this Court is considering allowing Reed Smith to withdraw, the Court should first order Defendants Zolotas and Berkowitz to appear in person to explain how much they have paid Reed Smith to date on account of this litigation, why they are not paying some or all of Reed Smith’s bills, and whether they have in fact entered into an agreement with Reed Smith regarding the firm’s withdrawal as reported in the press this week. This action should not be stayed, and Defendants Zolotas and Berkowitz should be ordered to appear for their depositions in New York City on or before July 15, 2015.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, TransAsia respectfully requests this Court deny Reed Smith’s motion to withdraw and stay this case, order Defendants to appear on or before July 15, 2015 to be deposed in New York City, in accordance with the Court’s prior order, and for such other relief to which the Court deems TransAsia entitled.
Dated: New York, New York
June 12, 2015
Cozen O’Connor
/s/ Melissa Brill
Melissa Brill
45 Broadway 16th Floor
New York, New York 10006
212.509.9400
mbrill@cozen.com
Eric D. Freed
1900 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-665-3724
efreed@cozen.com
Admitted pro hac vice
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TransAsia Commodities Investment Limited
It's going to da moon!!! BUY BUY BUY! LOL
Well 6 million of the volume today never should have happened... Someone bought 3 million at 13:01 at 0.0044 ($13,200) and quickly realized their mistake and sold it a minute later at 0.0042 ($12,600). They lost $600...
A little update about the $NEWL (Focus) bribe money from Zolotas and the collapse of Cyprus Laiki Bank!
DIKO describes main rival parties of ‘champions of corruption’
June 11th. 2015 By Constantinos Psillides
DIKO leader Nicolas Papadopoulos shot at both AKEL and DISY on Wednesday, saying they were “champions of corruption” and cover ups during a row over the appointment of an assistant tax commissioner.
Papadopoulos’ comments came only a day after he publicly condemned the appointment of Anastasia Akkidou as assistant tax commissioner, claiming that she had links with an audit firm under investigation in connection with party funding from Focus Maritime Corporation, owned by Greek shipowner Michalis Zolotas who is believed to be linked to former Laiki strongman Andreas Vgenopoulos.
Reports said Focus paid €500,000 directly to DISY in ten instalments of €50,000 in January and February of 2008, and almost €1.5m to AKEL – of which €1m was paid through offshore
Abendale Management Corporation in two equal instalments in September 2007, and €450,000 in June 2008 through Kyprianides, Nicolaou &Associates.
The firm has denied any wrongdoing, claiming that the money was paid for services rendered.
AKEL flatly denied having received any money from Focus, while DISY only acknowledged receipt of €50,000, which it returned to legacy Laiki.
Papadopoulos also claimed that AKEL and DISY conspired so that any investigation regarding Vgenopoulos was put on hold and that the two parties used a warning letter from European Central Bank President Mario Draghi as a pretext to freeze a probe into Central Bank Governor Chrystalla Georghadji.
Papadopoulos also alleged that the two parties were working together to stall an investigation on the sale of Cyprus banks’ branches in Greece and an investigation on the Focus case.
“All of this is the result of the Christofias’ and Anastasiades’ administrations. It is because of this that as a country we have lost the trust of foreign investors and the trust of the people, who realised that they live in absolute chaos,” said the DIKO leader.
AKEL general secretary Andros Kyprianou dismissed Papadopoulos’ accusations, saying: “It would be a great joke, had the situation not been so tragic.”
DISY chief Averof Neophytou said he would not grace Papadopoulos’ comments with a response, adding that what was important was that the country turned the page. Neophytou also noted that even if the firm Akkidou has ties to was found at fault, that did not extend to everyone working for them.
http://cyprus-mail.com/2015/06/11/diko-describes-main-rival-parties-of-champions-of-corruption/
And here is a link about the collapse of Cyprus Laiki Bank, stating that it is coming close to being able to prosecute those involved, and we know Zolotas is very involved from articles that have been released!
http://www.news.cyprus-property-buyers.com/2015/05/03/banking-system-corruption/id=0060168
Here are all court documents for Transasia vs. Newlead $NEWL http://www.4shared.com/zip/YWw6bX37ce/Transasia_vs_Newlead.html
New article out today on Tradewinds!
More shots fired in coal suit
In 2013, TransAsia sued NewLead for $6.2m over claims that the joint venture struck a coal supply deal without any coal to sell. NewLead JMEG fired back with counterclaims contending that TransAsia induced it into the coal purchase agreement (CPA) by ...
And wouldn't ya know it? Can't read the article because it is by subscription only!
https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=d0W2T7Y6vvYZxKMkrAbJz-ai909UM&q=Newlead%2BTransasia&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB8QqgIwAGoVChMI1Zza6YWGxgIVgzesCh0auAC8
All kinds of new court documents out today! $NEWL is sure to be handing over at least $6.2m to Transasia!
I will upload the documents around 6:00pm EST to my 4shared site...
NewLead’s defence attorneys apply for resignation
June 9th, 2015 Holly Birkett
Athens: Legal firm Reed Smith has applied to be relieved as counsel in an ongoing New York Supreme Court case, in which its attorneys are representing defendants NewLead Holdings, its CEO Michael Zolotas, coal mining subsidiary NewLead JMEG and its chief executive Jan Berkowitz.
As Splash has reported previously, the breach of contract case brought by London-based trader TransAsia Commodities against the defendants does not appear to be what the judge originally called “an open and shut case”.
“The heart of the case, your Honour, is a big multinational fraudulent scheme that we were victims of,” Melissa Brill, the plaintiff’s attorney from law firm Cozen O’Connor, told the court at a hearing on April 13.
Evan K Farber, attorney for Reed Smith, who has been representing the defendants in the court hearings to date, has filed an emergency affirmation in support of the law firm’s application to resign as defence counsel. Much of the contents of the document seen by Splash have been redacted.
Farber said he emailed the defendants on June 8, informing them of the firm’s decision to resign as their counsel, but the defendants have not given their consent for the withdrawal.
“This case is developing into a lengthy process beyond our original estimates,” Elisa Gerouki, corporate communications manager for NewLead Holdings, told Splash today. “Given the fact that Reed Smith is a major law firm, therefore resulting in augmented legal fees, NewLead together with Reed Smith decided that finding an alternative less expensive legal firm was the best way forward for both parties. That decision was irrespective of the development of the case.”
TransAsia Commodities, the plaintiff, now has an opportunity to challenge a 30- to 60-day stay of all proceedings to allow the defendants to find new counsel, but has not yet made a decision on the matter.
In a letter dated May 29, TransAsia’s attorney Melissa Brill told NewLead JMEG and its counsel that if they did not voluntarily dismiss their two counterclaims within seven days, the plaintiff would seek to pursue financial sanctions against them, based on what the court defines as “frivolous conduct”.
The two counterclaims made by NewLead JMEG allege that TransAsia made false representations in an attempt to defraud the mining company by inducing it to sign a coal purchase agreement. The second counterclaim alleges that TransAsia breached the purchase agreement by failing to supply a letter of credit from its bank, and that the trader supplied a forged letter of credit from another bank to NewLead JMEG.
“No evidence exists to substantiate either of these claims,” Brill claims in the letter, which she said constitutes “frivolous conduct”.
Where the breach of contract case is concerned, TransAsia has submitted a motion to the court for partial summary judgment against NewLead JMEG, plus dismissal of two subsequent counterclaims.
TransAsia’s counsel seeks an award that covers the trader’s fees and costs in handling these counterclaims and “such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper”. The attorneys submitted to the court email correspondence between Zolotas, Berkowitz and TransAsia’s principal Serge Turko, in which the defendants acknowledge the losses sustained by TransAsia following NewLead JMEG’s inability to deliver the coal purchased by the trader.
The London-based trader seeks $6.2m in compensation over a failed agreement to buy 110,000 tonnes of coal from NewLead JMEG, a coal mining joint venture with NewLead Holdings. The coal was never delivered to the trader, which alleges that NewLead JMEG signed the multimillion-dollar sales agreements to inflate its share price and to obtain credit from banks. The defendants have denied the allegations in full.
The plaintiffs, in their complaint to the court filed on December 20, 2013, claim that the defendants created NewLead JMEG as a “shell company” and represented the company as one that was an “active, viable and profit-making coal mining and trading company”. “In fact, NewLead JMEG had no coal mines, no coal and no ability whatsoever to engage in the coal business,” the complaint says.
It has been alleged by the trader’s counsel that NewLead Holdings publicised NewLead JMEG’s multimillion-dollar sales contracts for coal in its press releases and public filings in order to inflate the group’s share price and prevent it being delisted from the NASDAQ stock exchange.
“By way of example, during January and February of 2013, it is claimed that NewLead JMEG entered into three Sale and Purchase agreements with two parties to supply over $800m of thermal coal to be mined in Kentucky,” the plaintiff’s attorneys write in the complaint. “NewLead Holdings’ public filings and press releases repeatedly point to these and other large coal sale contracts as an indication that NewLead Holdings was regaining financial strength.”
NewLead Holdings was eventually delisted from the NASDAQ exchange and now trades its stock in the over-the-counter market.
TransAsia claims that at the time of signing its sales and purchase agreement with NewLead JMEG on June 21, 2013, NewLead Holdings “lacked the financial wherewithal to perform as required under the contract”.
Last week, NewLead announced plans to “double the size” of its existing fleet of 11 vessels, which includes five dry bulk and six tanker vessels, including one third-party vessel under management.
Antonis Bertsos resigned as CFO of NewLead Holdings to “pursue other career opportunities” on May 30.
http://splash247.com/newleads-defence-attorneys-apply-for-resignation/
For Document 300, it's easier to just download it from my 4shared site...
http://www.4shared.com/office/YDoZQzjgba/document_300.html
Here is a image of Document 299... It looks like $NEWL lost their lawyers! It was a short document so I was able to create a image of it, but you really need to see Document 300. It's a doozey! I will try to create several images of it and post each one in a different post... But first, here is Document 299.
OOPS! New low $0.0048 and on it's way down to the lower bollinger band at $0.004 soon...
Zolotas just doesn't give up... What a moron! You can kiss even more of your money goodbye! You permabull $NEWL fans are going to have to pay for them! That's if any of their ships even exist! What a scam! How do you get so many ships and pay for them when you are in such bad shape? It's all a scam and they need to be stopped!!!
NewLead to double up
Michael Zolotas, chief executive of NewLead Holdings, has revealed plans to double the company's fleet during 2015.
That could bring NewLead's tally to 20 vessels, with Zolotas setting his sights on opportunities in the asphalt and bitumen market.
The Greek owner has bolstered its presence in this niche sector with the acquisition of five tankers from compatriot Harmonia Shipping Management in January.
A few weeks ago, it tied up one of its bitumen tankers for 12 months, with four optional years.
According to analysts’ estimates, demand for asphalt and bitumen from China and Russia will grow 5% and 10% respectively, NewLead said in a Los Angeles conference earlier this week.
Its fleet now consists of five bulkers and five asphalt/bitumen tankers.
Three of its tankers are under contracts expiring later in 2015 and in early 2016 with the remaining two ships operating in the spot market.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QqQIoADAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradewindsnews.com%2Fdrycargo%2F361476%2Fnewlead-to-double-up&ei=iAdxVcbmM4uwsAXOvoOIAQ&usg=AFQjCNE3jWmUE93BGOWeSCBlCLhZVZM-CA&sig2=oV_ZoSdmybKFAgiKbz_J4Q