Top Shelf Brands Holdings Corp. (DKTS)

[loanranger]

If you haven't read it (which I'm not questioning), how do you know that it's hand written?

"On tuesday it came out that klein submitted an affidavit, right?
Then on thursday the case was cancelled."
"So what, if not the affidavit, what other reasonable possibilities for the cancellation? To me, it must have been the affidavit (which i refer to as nothing more than a letter Klein wrote, thats all it is, right?)... "

The court docket says:
"NOTICE OF CANCELLING HEARING"
Pierce said:
"Top Shelf Brands is pleased to announce today that the long and awaited summary judgment court case regarding the permanent cancelation of the 1 Billion shares that we believe to be fraudulent, was cancelled."

I think the general assumption is that Pierce's statement is more definitive.....it's just not clearly expressed.
I really don't know for sure, but it seems that:
1. The summary judgment motion was denied, so....
2. ...the case which, without the fancy language, is a suit for the return of certain share certificates, will proceed.

I'm relying on AP's statement for that interpretation, but the hearing could have been cancelled for other reasons. I read a post suggesting that perhaps there has been some kind of a settlement, rendering the need for a hearing moot. While the complaint doesn't seek dollars, Pierce could have made an offer to the plaintiffs to make them go away. Of course, his press release suggests just the opposite (“I am shocked that the opposition has decided submit affidavits and subject themselves to litigation....), so if we can rely on that statement it doesn't seem likely that the hearing was cancelled based on a settlement.

Prior to receiving the affidavits of Klein and Huffman the court had more than three months to mull over the motion for summary judgment itself, which I thought had been made available online by SCM but can no longer find. The judge could have very well made his decision based on the case presented therein and just held off on a decision until the hearing date, allowing the K&H affidavits to be filed in order to simply complete the record. So no, I don't think that "it must have been the affidavit", although I think that it PROBABLY was.
The criteria was laid out for a summary judgment ruling earlier. It seems a bit counter-intuitive at first blush, and it has been scoffed at on this very board, but if there are differences between the parties on the facts (read: the parties don't agree on the facts) the court CAN'T grant a summary judgment motion. There may be slight variations in the summary judgment standard from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I think the one provided earlier and repeated at the end of this post is the norm.

"BTW, since the case was cancelled is the affidavit public record?"
I don't see why not.



Summary Judgment Standard

In deciding a summary judgment motion, the court, or judge, reviews the pleadings, any depositions, any answers to interrogatories, any admissions on file, and any affidavits. Summary judgment should be granted only when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. A material fact is a fact that could affect the outcome of the case. An issue of fact is genuine if the evidence would justify a verdict for the party opposing the summary judgment motion. All inferences drawn from the evidence presented and all ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the party who opposes the summary judgment motion.