I've been wondering if there were any such actions in the post-WCVC-revocation time frame, for anyone (but hopefully the SEC. which was the case) to prosecute any WCVC convertible note holders.
This particular case has been mentioned before in blogs by Brenda Hamilton, in a (repeated in other articles) list of cases that follow this sort of statement by her:
The settlement with GHS is just the latest win for the SEC against toxic lenders operating as unregistered securities dealers who leave a trail of destruction and investor losses in their paths.
Although I can't say the question is fully answered, now we know that there was at least one post-WCVC-revocation judgment against a toxic lender who lent to WCVC.