InvestorsHub Logo
Post# of 123875
Next 10
Followers 5
Posts 494
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/20/2011

Re: None

Wednesday, 12/07/2016 2:11:22 PM

Wednesday, December 07, 2016 2:11:22 PM

Post# of 123875
The results are in here is what happened at the court hearing against NGCG in Broward County Court today. Tom Kim was the CEO was not present and his attorney couldn't argue the motion to quash so because of Due process it has all been postponed until January 13th.

I would like to point out a few things because I Know it has been posted here that the CEO Tom Kim believes that Ross is responsible and not him because his contract and that He can sue Ross as an option if and when he loses.

There are some huge problems with that that need to be pointed out to everyone. First in his own words the CEO TOm Kim is a corporate fixer to Billionaires, not millionaires but Billionaires and he posted that on the NGCG website. I t is important to look at what kind of contract this seasoned successful business man signed. Whether or not he had experience in Pubcos' the glaring problems with this contract are basic 101 and it is strange yet apparent that the corporate fixer specialist as he calls himself did no DD before making this deal and used no lawyer to make this contract. I am no genius but wouldn't such a successful seasoned business man have a lawyer to revies a contract.

Please look at the problems of the contract posted below posted by sections:

Section

1- Ross is not the sole shareholder of NGCG and according to this line NGCG is a Delaware corporation doing business as CALVIN ROSS( the corporation)

2-Fails to list the purchase as series A2 shares as required in any contract and states that Ross only sold him 1,000,000 shares but common and not preffered,

4. the closing according to this took place on march 14th. 2016 however it is signed on March 15th 2016 the same day as a different MOU was signed

8. Disputes have to be settled by mediation first and then arbitration and not by filing a lawsuit.

Schedule B: is correct as Kim is not being sued personally and is not responsible for any past debt except the problem is NGCG is being sued and is responsible and no where does this agreement say that the new co NGCG would not be liable for past debts

plus on the MOU it is very clear that there were acknowledge prior debts of notes to Ruppert.







Join the InvestorsHub Community

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.