InvestorsHub Logo
Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
Subscribe Login/Register
S&P 500
5,567.19
(
1.06%
)
US TECH 100
19,828.00
(
0.95%
)
Dow Jones
39,375.87
(
0.17%
)
Brent Oil
86.78
(
0.00%
)
Bitcoin
56,844.03
(
-2.50%
)
Post# of 157299
Next 10
Reply Private New
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (3) Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (3) Next 10 Prev Next

rwehapi2003

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 23
Posts 821
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 06/24/2006

rwehapi2003

Re: be_real post# 150148

Friday, 02/21/2014 8:22:57 AM

Friday, February 21, 2014 8:22:57 AM

Post# of 157299
LJC did respond and basically said LJC did nothing wrong and wants the case dismissed and various claims of fraud committed by LJC stricken, etc. Responses due by 3/5.

I think LJC is trying to argue that:

1) WSGI is actually in breach because they decided to exercise the True-Up component of the agreement but did make the required cash payments.

2) LJC is not obligated to the terms of the EIA because of WSGI breach.

What is interesting is the LJC states "WSG's SEC counsel recommended that WSG work with LaJolla"

Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (3) Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (3) Next 10 Prev Next

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.

Sign Up