Tuesday, October 17, 2017 7:37:25 AM
The essence of Defendant’s argument is that he had a consulting contract. If that is the case, and we do dispute that factually, then when he proves the validity of that contract he may well win, but not on a motion to dismiss. I am not certain what aspect of no consideration Defendant doesn’t understand. Plaintiff argues that Schwebel has rendered no service that can be legally recognized. Plaintiff may disagree but he can hardly contest that the allegation has been made. Case
While the securities law violations are somewhat sparsely pled, the allegations are straightforward, these Defendants and the Company engaged in a subterfuge to disguise the real reasons for the issuance of these shares. Dolat is not a company devoid of meaningful history in this regard. It is a vehicle that was used for the classic “pump and dump” which can also be asserted if need be due to the recent completion of certain proceedings in a criminal case in the District of Connecticut involving persons known to Mr. Hauck, the head of this cabal of lies and deceit.
Defendant Schwebel then asserts that he owns 30,000,000 shares of Dolat common stock, but one would not know this if one looked for the required Forms 3, 4 or 5 that one owning such concentration should have filed. Nor were there any Williams Act filings which were also required. If Defendant Schwebel wants a much more specific assertion of the components of the conspiracy present in this Company Plaintiff is now prepared to lay it out in detail.
Defendant Schwebel and his minions participated in a significant stock fraud whereby no real business was conducted but certain chosen persons were positioned to benefit while the public got screwed. If an opportunity to amend is required this fraud can be spelt out with even more specificity.
Finally, Defendants Chabad of North Hollywood, Glenn S Bordoff, Adam Braun Nechama Kuravkiy, Mazel Property Enterprise Corp. and Elimelech Rosenblat have submitted Docket No. 29, a letter similar to that of Defendants J&M Family Foundation and Benjamin Neuman. The same arguments apply so I will not repeat them and waste the Court’s time further
The objections raised by Defendants J&M Family Foundation and Benjamin Neuman in Docket No. 10 recite the same issues. They allege the same Wyoming Statute 17-16-304(b)(ii) but the argument remains the same is now that the State of Wyoming permits fraudsters to issue stock without consideration to dupe the public. We disagree for the reasons cited above.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/21296169/Dolat_Ventures,_Inc_v_VStock_Transfer_LLC_et_al
NanoViricides Reports that the Phase I NV-387 Clinical Trial is Completed Successfully and Data Lock is Expected Soon • NNVC • May 2, 2024 10:07 AM
ILUS Files Form 10-K and Provides Shareholder Update • ILUS • May 2, 2024 8:52 AM
Avant Technologies Names New CEO Following Acquisition of Healthcare Technology and Data Integration Firm • AVAI • May 2, 2024 8:00 AM
Bantec Engaged in a Letter of Intent to Acquire a Small New Jersey Based Manufacturing Company • BANT • May 1, 2024 10:00 AM
Cannabix Technologies to Deliver Breath Logix Alcohol Screening Device to Australia • BLO • Apr 30, 2024 8:53 AM
Hydromer, Inc. Reports Preliminary Unaudited Financial Results for First Quarter 2024 • HYDI • Apr 29, 2024 9:10 AM